Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> The pxafb driver acts today on the subset of registers which are the same across >> all pxaXXX variants. This is what made me think only one compatible property was >> required. >> >> If I'm wrong, I could add "marvell,pxa3xx-lcdc", is that what you think I should >> do ? > > I would prefer specific compatibles (e.g. marvell,pxa270-lcdc) in > addition to a generic one. You never know when a specific chip will > have some quirk even though "the IP is the same". Okay. >> And then, when a board maintainer will create a devicetree description, he will >> write something like : >> compatible = "toshiba,ltm0305a776"; >> compatible = "marvell,pxa2xx-panel"; > > Drop this compatible. > >> lcd-type = "color-tft"; >> ... >> >> If that's the case, I wonder how to "enforce" that a panel used with >> marvell,pxa2xx-lcdc (through the of_graph 'port' node) be compatible with >> marvell,pxa2xx-panel ? > > I'm not sure what you mean. Putting the panel into the dts ensures > that. The FB driver may check for toshiba,ltm0305a776 or a list of > panels. However, a DRM driver would probably not check that. > > Rob What I mean is that the LDLC controller _must_ be programmmed with the correct panel type, ie. one register of the LDLC should be set according to this type. The type is a hardware property of the panel, and yet it is absolutely mandatory to have it set in the panel. What I mean is : what is the good way to enforce that this property is set somewhere in the devicetree description ? Philipp adviced for it to be transfered to the ldlc description (ie. marvell,pxa2xx-ldlc), while I was thinking of having it in a panel description. Cheers. -- Robert -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fbdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
