Hi Ajay, On Friday 10 October 2014 18:33:05 Ajay kumar wrote: > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Thierry Reding wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 05:49:24PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > >> 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. > > Right. It would be great if you guys come to agreement ASAP! I don't think we'll agree any time soon, so I believe it's up to you to decide which option is best based on all arguments that have been presented. If you ask me, of course, OF graph is best :-) -- 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
