On 10/19/21 8:49 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
Hi Marek,
Hi,
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/lvds-codec.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/lvds-codec.yaml
index 1faae3e323a4..708de84ac138 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/lvds-codec.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/lvds-codec.yaml
@@ -79,6 +79,14 @@ properties:
- port@0
- port@1
+ pclk-sample:
+ description:
+ Data sampling on rising or falling edge.
+ enum:
+ - 0 # Falling edge
+ - 1 # Rising edge
+ default: 0
+
Shouldn't this be moved to the endpoint, the same way data-mapping is
defined as an endpoint property ?
The strapping is a chip property, not port property, so no.
For this particular chip that's true. I'm still not convinced overall.
For some cases it could be a per-port property
Can you be more specific about "some cases" ?
I'm thinking about bridges that could have multiple parallel inputs.
Can you draft an example how such a binding would look like within the
confines of this lvds-codec.yaml ?
I also have to wonder how such a hypothetical device would work, would
it serialize two parallel bussed into single LVDS one ?
, and moving it there for
lvds-codec too could allow implementing helpers to parse DT properties,
without much drawback for this particular use case as far as I can see.
It's hard to predict the future with certainty of course, so I won't
insist.
The DT bindings and the OS drivers are separate thing, we really
shouldn't start bending DT bindings so that they would fit nicely with a
specific OS driver model.
DT bindings are not holy beings that live in a mythical heaven way above
the mere mortal drivers, they would be useless without implementations.
It's not about bending them, which I regularly push against during
review, but about structuring them in a way that facilitates
implementations when all other things are equal.
Note that the pclk-sample isn't a property of the input, but of the
chip, I don't think it is a good idea to say they are equal and conflate
them like so.
As I said, despite wondering whether or not it would be better to move
the property to the endpoint (and that was a genuine open question), I
won't insist in this case.
[...]
