On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxx> wrote: > On 20/09/14 14:22, Ajay kumar wrote: > >> Well, I am okay with using video ports to describe the relationship >> between the encoder, bridge and the panel. >> But, its just that I need to make use of 2 functions when phandle >> does it using just one function ;) >> - panel_node = of_parse_phandle(dev->of_node, "panel", 0) >> + endpoint = of_graph_get_next_endpoint(dev->of_node, NULL); >> + if (!endpoint) >> + return -EPROBE_DEFER; >> + >> + panel_node = of_graph_get_remote_port_parent(endpoint); >> + if (!panel_node) >> + return -EPROBE_DEFER; >> >> >> If nobody else has objections over using of_graph functions instead >> of phandles, I can respin this patchset by making use of video ports. > > The discussion did digress somewhat. > > As a clarification, I'm in no way nack'ing this series because it > doesn't use the graphs for video connections. I don't see the simple > phandle bindings used here as broken as such. Well, I am okay with any approach you guys decide on. I desperately want this to get this in since it has been floating around for quite sometime. The more we drag this, the more rework for me since the number of platforms using bridge support is increasing daily! Ajay -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
