On Fri October 5 2012 11:43:27 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > On Wed, 3 Oct 2012, Rob Herring wrote: > > > On 10/02/2012 09:33 AM, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > > Hi Rob > > > > > > On Tue, 2 Oct 2012, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > > >> On 09/27/2012 09:07 AM, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > >>> This patch adds a document, describing common V4L2 device tree bindings. > > >>> > > >>> Co-authored-by: Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > >>> Signed-off-by: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@xxxxxx> > > >>> --- > > >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/v4l2.txt | 162 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >>> 1 files changed, 162 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > >>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/v4l2.txt > > >>> > > >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/v4l2.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/v4l2.txt > > >>> new file mode 100644 > > >>> index 0000000..b8b3f41 > > >>> --- /dev/null > > >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/v4l2.txt > > >>> @@ -0,0 +1,162 @@ > > >>> +Video4Linux Version 2 (V4L2) > > >> > > >> DT describes the h/w, but V4L2 is Linux specific. I think the binding > > >> looks pretty good in terms of it is describing the h/w and not V4L2 > > >> components or settings. So in this case it's really just the name of the > > >> file and title I have issue with. > > > > > > Hm, I see your point, then, I guess, you'd also like the file name > > > changed. What should we use then? Just "video?" But there's already a > > > whole directory Documentation/devicetree/bindings/video dedicated to > > > graphics output (drm, fbdev). "video-camera" or "video-capture?" But this > > > file shall also be describing video output. Use "video.txt" and describe > > > inside what exactly this file is for? > > > > Video output will probably have a lot of overlap with the graphics side. > > How about video-interfaces.txt? > > Hm, that's a bit too vague for me. Somewhere on the outskirts of my mind > I'm still considering making just one standard for both V4L2 and fbdev / > DRM? Just yesterday we were discussing some common properties with what is > being proposed in > > http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-media@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/index.html#53322 > > Still, I think, these two subsystems deserve two separate standards and > should just try to re-use properties wherever that makes sense. > video-stream seems a bit better, but this too is just a convention - > talking about video cameras and TV output as video streaming devices and > considering displays more static devices. In principle displays can be > considered taking streaming data just as well as TV encoders. What if we > just call this camera-tv.txt? > > > >> One other comment below: > > >> > > >>> + > > >>> +General concept > > >>> +--------------- > > >>> + > > >>> +Video pipelines consist of external devices, e.g. camera sensors, controlled > > >>> +over an I2C, SPI or UART bus, and SoC internal IP blocks, including video DMA > > >>> +engines and video data processors. > > >>> + > > >>> +SoC internal blocks are described by DT nodes, placed similarly to other SoC > > >>> +blocks. External devices are represented as child nodes of their respective bus > > >>> +controller nodes, e.g. I2C. > > >>> + > > >>> +Data interfaces on all video devices are described by "port" child DT nodes. > > >>> +Configuration of a port depends on other devices participating in the data > > >>> +transfer and is described by "link" DT nodes, specified as children of the > > >>> +"port" nodes: > > >>> + > > >>> +/foo { > > >>> + port@0 { > > >>> + link@0 { ... }; > > >>> + link@1 { ... }; > > >>> + }; > > >>> + port@1 { ... }; > > >>> +}; > > >>> + > > >>> +If a port can be configured to work with more than one other device on the same > > >>> +bus, a "link" child DT node must be provided for each of them. If more than one > > >>> +port is present on a device or more than one link is connected to a port, a > > >>> +common scheme, using "#address-cells," "#size-cells" and "reg" properties is > > >>> +used. > > >>> + > > >>> +Optional link properties: > > >>> +- remote: phandle to the other endpoint link DT node. > > >> > > >> This name is a little vague. Perhaps "endpoint" would be better. > > > > > > "endpoint" can also refer to something local like in USB case. Maybe > > > rather the description of the "remote" property should be improved? > > > > remote-endpoint? > > Sorry, I really don't want to pull in yet another term here. We've got > ports and links already, now you're proposing to also use "endpoind." > Until now everyone was happy with "remote," any more opinions on this? Actually, when I was reviewing the patch series today I got confused as well by 'remote'. What about 'remote-link'? And v4l2_of_get_remote() can be renamed to v4l2_of_get_remote_link() which I think is a lot clearer. The text can be improved as well since this: - remote: phandle to the other endpoint link DT node. is a bit vague. How about: - remote-link: phandle to the remote end of this link. Regards, Hans _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
