On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 02:31:35PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > On 23/09/14 12:39, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > My point is that if you use plain phandles you usually have the > > meta-data already. Referring to the above example, bridge0 knows that it > > should look for a bridge with phandle &bridge1, whereas bridge1 knows > > that the device it is connected to is a panel. > > The bridge should not care what kind of device is there on the other > end. The bridge just has an output, going to another video component. You'll need to know at some point that one of the devices in a panel, otherwise you can't treat it like a panel. > >> Well, I can't say about this particular bridge, but afaik you can > >> connect a parallel RGB signal to multiple panels just like that, without > >> any muxing. > > > > Right, but in that case you're not reconfiguring the signal in any way > > for each of the panels. You send one single signal to all of them. For > > Yes, that's one use case, cloning. But I was not talking about that. > > > all intents and purposes there is only one panel. Well, I guess you > > could have separate backlights for the panels. In that case though it > > seems better to represent it at least as a virtual mux or bridge, or > > perhaps a "mux panel". > > I was talking about the case where you have two totally different > devices, let's say panels, connected to the same output. One could take > a 16-bit parallel RGB signal, the other 24-bit. Only one of them can be > enabled at a time (from HW perspective both can be enabled at the same > time, but then the other one shows garbage). So we're essentially back to a mux, albeit maybe a virtual one. Thierry
Attachment:
pgpXJs9Ba2VG3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
