Am Donnerstag, den 28.03.2013, 15:51 +0800 schrieb Shawn Guo:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 06:30:45PM +0100, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> > From: Steffen Trumtrar <s.trumtrar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Add ldb device tree node and clock lookups.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Steffen Trumtrar <s.trumtrar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6q.dtsi | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> > arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6qdl.dtsi | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 43 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6q.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6q.dtsi
> > index cba021e..1a30227 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6q.dtsi
> > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6q.dtsi
> > @@ -294,3 +294,20 @@
> > };
> > };
> > };
> > +
> > +&ldb {
> > + clocks = <&clks 33>, <&clks 34>,
> > + <&clks 39>, <&clks 40>, <&clks 41>, <&clks 42>,
> > + <&clks 135>, <&clks 136>;
> > + clock-names = "di0_pll", "di1_pll",
> > + "di0_sel", "di1_sel", "di2_sel", "di3_sel",
> > + "di0", "di1";
>
> These are identical with the ones in imx6qdl.dtsi, so not needed at all?
The ldb node in imx6qdl.dtsi doesn't have the di[23]_sel clocks, because
i.MX6dl doesn't have the second IPU.
On i.MX6q, di[23]_sel should point to the ipu2_di0_sel and ipu2_di1_sel
mux clocks. On i.MX6dl, di2_sel should point to lcdif_sel, eventually,
and di3_sel shouldn't be given.
Should I remove the clocks from imx6qdl.dtsi altogether, to avoid
confusion?
> > +
> > + lvds-channel@0 {
> > + crtcs = <&ipu1 0>, <&ipu1 1>, <&ipu2 0>, <&ipu2 1>;
> > + };
> > +
> > + lvds-channel@1 {
> > + crtcs = <&ipu1 0>, <&ipu1 1>, <&ipu2 0>, <&ipu2 1>;
> > + };
> > +};
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6qdl.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6qdl.dtsi
> > index 06ec460..dd5ef96 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6qdl.dtsi
> > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6qdl.dtsi
> > @@ -529,6 +529,32 @@
> > reg = <0x020e0000 0x38>;
> > };
> >
> > + ldb: ldb@020e0008 {
> > + #address-cells = <1>;
> > + #size-cells = <0>;
> > + compatible = "fsl,imx6q-ldb", "fsl,imx53-ldb";
>
> Since both compatible strings are in the driver matching table, it's not
> necessary to have "fsl,imx53-ldb" listed here.
I originally intended to split the input multiplexer from the LDB
driver, as we have the same for HDMI and MIPI on i.MX6 (minus the clock
multiplexing requirements), because apart from that, the LDB blocks are
identical. Shouldn't this be documented in the device tree?
regards
Philipp
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
