On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 10:37:18PM GMT, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 06:02:59PM GMT, Marc Gonzalez wrote: > > In default mode, this device works transparently. > > > > Signed-off-by: Marc Gonzalez <mgonzalez@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/simple-bridge.yaml | 4 ++++ > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/simple-bridge.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/simple-bridge.yaml > > index 43cf4df9811a5..5f0c9687538bf 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/simple-bridge.yaml > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/simple-bridge.yaml > > @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ properties: > > - ti,opa362 > > - ti,ths8134 > > - ti,ths8135 > > + - ti,tdp158 > > > > ports: > > $ref: /schemas/graph.yaml#/properties/ports > > @@ -52,6 +53,9 @@ properties: > > maxItems: 1 > > description: GPIO controlling bridge enable > > > > + vcc-supply: > > + description: Power supply for the bridge > > + > > vdd-supply: > > description: Power supply for the bridge > > I'd suggest having a separate _bindings_ file. This way you can point > out that it's an I2C device sitting on the I2C bus. And once somebody > has to extend the bindings to support 'smarter' programming of this chip > they can edit just that file. It's still fine to use the simple-bridge > driver for the device defined in that bindings file. Yeah, we want a separate binding for that one, that, just like we discussed in v1, can be extended to support the other setups this bridge can be used for. Maxime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
