On 06/26/2012 11:07 PM, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 04:48:14PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: ... > I actually like what you proposed above a lot, so if you don't > mind either way I'll go with that proposal. Keeping the connector > nodes as children of the outputs has the advantage of being able to > reference them if we need it at some point. But it is also > redundant in that a single output doesn't usually (never?) driver > more than one connector. Yes, I believe that each output is 1:1 with (the video portion of) a connector. The display controllers obviously aren't 1:1. > The same issue will have to be addressed for the CSI and VI nodes, > but as I currently use neither of those I don't feel qualified to > propose a binding for them. Also for the VI part we're completely > missing documentation. Maybe somebody could push this to be > released as well? I did file a bug noting the request for VI documentation. At this point in time, it's too early to say what, if anything, will come of that. > If I understand correctly, most of the host1x children can also be > chained in a processing pipeline to do postprocessing an video > input for example. I suppose that's generic and doesn't need to be > represented in DT either, right? Yes, I believe that's something internal to the driver. _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
