On 2013-02-18 12:03, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Tomi Valkeinen <tomba@xxxxxx> wrote: >> But my main concern for this series is still that it creates custom >> panel stuff, and adds DT bindings for them. Which means we need to >> support those custom DT bindings in the future, even though it's quite >> sure that CDF should be used also for this driver, changing the bindings. > > I'm confused a bit, but shouldn't the DT bindings and CDF be rather > orthogonal? Of course for ARM board support we need to have DT binding > tables in the kernel to match up hw with the drivers, but I've thought > it should be pretty much irrelevant which driver is hooking up to a > given dt binding ... Yes, you're right, DT bindings should describe the HW, no matter what the software looks like. I was a bit unclear. Perhaps I should rephrase my main concern to: the DT bindings in this series does not describe the hardware properly and in enough detail. The bindings work for now, but a more sophisticated driver needs more information about the HW. For example, looking at the first patch, I see DT nodes for the LCDC and the dvicape, but nothing describes the connection between these two. And looking at the third patch, there's a DT node for HDMI, using compatible = "tilcdc,slave". Again, no connection is described, and also "tilcdc,slave" doesn't even sound like any hardware device, but more like a software construct for this particular driver. Those are just off the top of my head. These things are usually quite difficult to find out until you actually implement the code. Tomi _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
