On 10/7/2012 11:01 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > On Mon, 2012-10-08 at 10:25 +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > >> In general, I might be misunderstanding something, but don't we have to >> distinguish between 2 types of information about display timings: (1) is >> defined by the display controller requirements, is known to the display >> driver and doesn't need to be present in timings DT. We did have some of >> these parameters in board data previously, because we didn't have proper >> display controller drivers... (2) is board specific configuration, and is >> such it has to be present in DT. >> >> In that way, doesn't "interlaced" belong to type (1) and thus doesn't need >> to be present in DT? > > As I see it, this DT data is about the display (most commonly LCD > panel), i.e. what video mode(s) the panel supports. If things were done > my way, the panel's supported timings would be defined in the driver for > the panel, and DT would be left to describe board specific data, but > this approach has its benefits. > > Thus, if you connect an interlaced panel to your board, Do interlaced panels exist? I have never seen one. you need to tell > the display controller that this panel requires interlace signal. Also, > pixel clock source doesn't make sense in this context, as this doesn't > describe the actual used configuration, but only what the panel > supports. > > Of course, if this is about describing the hardware, the default-mode > property doesn't really fit in... > > Tomi > > > > _______________________________________________ > devicetree-discuss mailing list > devicetree-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss > _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
