Hi
On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 11:15 AM Philip Chen <philipchen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 9:22 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 9:02 PM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > + pp3300_brij_ps8640: pp3300-brij-ps8640 {
> > > > + compatible = "regulator-fixed";
> > > > + status = "okay";
> > > > + regulator-name = "pp3300_brij_ps8640";
> > > > +
> > > > + regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>;
> > > > + regulator-max-microvolt = <3300000>;
> > > > +
> > > > + gpio = <&tlmm 32 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
> > >
> > > Doesn't this need
> > >
> > > enable-active-high;
> >
> > Looks like it. Without that it looks like it assumes active low.
> Thanks for catching this.
> I'll fix it in v3.
>
> >
> >
> > > > +
> > > > + pinctrl-names = "default";
> > > > + pinctrl-0 = <&en_pp3300_edp_brij_ps8640>;
> > > > +
> > > > + vin-supply = <&pp3300_a>;
> > > > + };
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > +&dsi0_out {
> > > > + remote-endpoint = <&ps8640_in>;
> > >
> > > Should this also have data-lanes to be "complete"?
> >
> > That's still back in the main trogdor.dtsi, isn't it?
> Yes, I think so.
> Plus, ti-sn65 dts doesn't define data-lanes for input either.
Sorry, I was wrong.
ti-sn65 dts actually defines data-lanes for input.
However, since ps8640 driver doesn't parse input data-lanes for now,
it's not useful to add data-lanes here anyway.
>
> >
> >
> > > > +edp_brij_i2c: &i2c2 {
> > > > + status = "okay";
> > > > + clock-frequency = <400000>;
> > > > +
> > > > + ps8640_bridge: edp-bridge@8 {
> > >
> > > Just bridge@8 to match ti bridge? Also, is the label used? If not
> > > please drop it.
> >
> > I agree with Stephen about it being "bridge@8". Personally I don't
> > mind labels like this even if they're not used since they don't hurt
> > and it creates less churn to add them now, but I won't fight hard to
> > keep them.
> I will make it "bridge@8" to match ti-sn65 dts.
> Meanwhile, can we keep "ps8640_bridge" label to match ti-sn65 dts?
>
> >
> >
> > > > + aux_bus: aux-bus {
> > >
> > > Is this label used either?
> >
> > Yeah, I'd get rid of this one since there you didn't add it in the
> > sn65dsi86 dtsi file and it seems exceedingly unlikely we'd need it for
> > any reason.
> Sure, I will remove "aux_bus" label in v3.
>
> >
> > -Doug
