Hi Ajay, On Tuesday 07 October 2014 16:06:55 Ajay kumar wrote: > On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Tomi Valkeinen 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! I won't nack this patch either. I'm however concerned that we'll run straight into the wall if we don't come up with an agreement on a standard way to describe connections in DT for display devices, which is why I would prefer the ps8622 bindings to use OF graph to describe connections. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart -- 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
