On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 05:49:24PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > 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. I think there's not really an easy way out here. It's pretty bold trying to come up with a common way to describe bridges when we have only a single one (and a single use-case at that). The worst that can happen is that we need to change the binding at some point, in which case we may have to special-case early drivers, but I really don't think that's as much of an issue as everybody seems to think. This series has been floating around for months because we're being overly prudent to accept a binding that /may/ turn out to not be generic enough. Thierry
Attachment:
pgptWkjfkUsIQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
