On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 9:19 AM Markus Schneider-Pargmann <msp@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 07:43:16PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 11:46:19AM +0200, Markus Schneider-Pargmann wrote: > > > This controller is present on several mediatek hardware. Currently > > > mt8195 and mt8395 have this controller without a functional difference, > > > so only one compatible field is added. > > > > > > The controller can have two forms, as a normal display port and as an > > > embedded display port. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Markus Schneider-Pargmann <msp@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > .../display/mediatek/mediatek,dp.yaml | 89 +++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 89 insertions(+) > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/mediatek/mediatek,dp.yaml > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/mediatek/mediatek,dp.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/mediatek/mediatek,dp.yaml > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 000000000000..f7a35962c23b > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/mediatek/mediatek,dp.yaml > > > @@ -0,0 +1,89 @@ > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) > > > +%YAML 1.2 > > > +--- > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/display/mediatek/mediatek,dp.yaml# > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > > + > > > +title: Mediatek Display Port Controller > > > + > > > +maintainers: > > > + - CK Hu <ck.hu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > + - Jitao shi <jitao.shi@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > + > > > +description: | > > > + Device tree bindings for the Mediatek (embedded) Display Port controller > > > + present on some Mediatek SoCs. > > > + > > > +properties: > > > + compatible: > > > + enum: > > > + - mediatek,mt8195-edp_tx > > > + - mediatek,mt8195-dp_tx > > > > Are these blocks different? > > Good point, the registers of these blocks are described in its own > chapter each. Also I do need to distinguish between both in the driver. > Would you suggest making this distinction differently or keep it as two > compatibles? If the registers are all the same, then it should be the same compatible. If you still need to distinguish, then you should have a panel or connector node that will let you do that. Also, s/_/-/ in the compatible string. Rob
