On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:04:58PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Peter, Laurent! > > On Saturday 07 Jan 2017 01:29:52 Peter Senna Tschudin wrote: > > On 04 January, 2017 21:39 CET, Rob Herring wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Peter Senna Tschudin wrote: > > >> On 03 January, 2017 23:51 CET, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >>> On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 09:24:29PM +0100, Peter Senna Tschudin wrote: > > >>>> Devicetree bindings documentation for the GE B850v3 LVDS/DP++ > > >>>> display bridge. > > >>>> > > >>>> Cc: Martyn Welch <martyn.welch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >>>> Cc: Martin Donnelly <martin.donnelly@xxxxxx> > > >>>> Cc: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >>>> Cc: Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >>>> Cc: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >>>> Cc: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> > > >>>> Cc: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@xxxxxxx> > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Senna Tschudin <peter.senna@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >>>> --- > > >>>> There was an Acked-by from Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> for V6, but > > >>>> I changed the bindings to use i2c_new_secondary_device() so I > > >>>> removed it from the commit message. > > >>>> > > >>>> .../devicetree/bindings/ge/b850v3-lvds-dp.txt | 39 ++++++++++++++ > > >>> Generally, bindings are not organized by vendor. Put in > > >>> bindings/display/bridge/... instead. > > >> > > >> Will change that. > > >> > > >>>> 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+) > > >>>> create mode 100644 > > >>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ge/b850v3-lvds-dp.txt > > >>>> > > >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ge/b850v3-lvds-dp.txt > > >>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ge/b850v3-lvds-dp.txt new file > > >>>> mode 100644 > > >>>> index 0000000..1bc6ebf > > >>>> --- /dev/null > > >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ge/b850v3-lvds-dp.txt > > >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ > > >>>> +Driver for GE B850v3 LVDS/DP++ display bridge > > >>>> + > > >>>> +Required properties: > > >>>> + - compatible : should be "ge,b850v3-lvds-dp". > > >>> > > >>> Isn't '-lvds-dp' redundant? The part# should be enough. > > >> > > >> b850v3 is the name of the product, this is why the proposed name. What > > >> about, b850v3-dp2 dp2 indicating the second DP output? > > > > > > Humm, b850v3 is the board name? This node should be the name of the bridge > > > chip. > > > > From the cover letter: > > > > -- // -- > > There are two physical bridges on the video signal pipeline: a STDP4028(LVDS > > to DP) and a STDP2690(DP to DP++). The hardware and firmware made it > > complicated for this binding to comprise two device tree nodes, as the > > design goal is to configure both bridges based on the LVDS signal, which > > leave the driver powerless to control the video processing pipeline. The > > two bridges behaves as a single bridge, and the driver is only needed for > > telling the host about EDID / HPD, and for giving the host powers to ack > > interrupts. The video signal pipeline is as follows: > > > > Host -> LVDS|--(STDP4028)--|DP -> DP|--(STDP2690)--|DP++ -> Video output > > -- // -- > > You forgot to prefix your patch series with [HACK] ;-) > > How about fixing the issues that make the two DT nodes solution difficult ? > What are they ? The Firmware and the hardware design. Both bridges, with stock firmware, are fully capable of providig EDID information and handling interrupts. But on this specific design, with this specific firmware, I need to read EDID from one bridge, and handle interrupts on the other. Back when I was starting the development I could not come up with a proper way to split EDID and interrupts between two bridges in a way that would result in a fully functional connector. Did I miss something? > > -- > Regards, > > Laurent Pinchart > _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
