On 5/29/19 8:28 AM, Jacopo Mondi wrote: [...] >>>>> [1] https://www.renesas.com/eu/en/products/audio-video/video-decoders-encoders/video-decoders/device/ISL79987.html >>>>> >>>>>> +Required Properties: >>>>>> +- compatible: value should be "isil,isl79987" >>> >>> And here you might want to have 2 different compatibles for 79987 and >>> 79988. >> >> The 79988 is not supported yet, do we want to have it in the binding doc? >> > > I got mislead by the isl7998x naming scheme you used... > > I would say that's up to you, the two chips seems very similar, > and it might make sense to provide bindings that support both. At the > same time, as long as the here defined bindings does not prevent > future expansions to include the ISL79988, its support could be safely > post-poned. In that case please s/isl7998x/isl79987/ in this document > and do not mention BT565 in the description. Right >> [...] >> >>>>> I see from the example you only support one output port? How do you >>>>> model the input ones. >>>> >>>> I don't . Do we model analog inputs now somehow ? >>> >>> I really think so, please see: >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/connector/analog-tv-connector.txt >>> >>> And as an example of a board device tree using connectors to model >>> analog input see how the cvbs input on Salvator-X is described: >>> >>> cvbs-in { >>> compatible = "composite-video-connector"; >>> label = "CVBS IN"; >>> >>> port { >>> cvbs_con: endpoint { >>> remote-endpoint = <&adv7482_ain7>; >>> }; >>> }; >>> }; >>> >>> I think you should provide 4 input ports, where to connect input from >>> the analog connectors, and derive the number of enabled inputs from >>> the number of endpoints connected to an active remote. >> >> Deriving the number of active physical inputs from some existing binding >> makes sense. >> >> However unlike the adv7482, the isl79987 does not support remapping the >> physical inputs to ADCs in the chip. It does support some remapping of >> physical inputs to MIPI CSI2 channels, but that's probably not very useful. >> > > I understand, but I will now use against you the argument you have > correctly pointed out here below that DT should describe hardware, and > the hardware has indeed 4 input ports.. My question here is whether it makes sense to describe the ports even if they cannot be muxed to different ADC. Does it ? [...] -- Best regards, Marek Vasut
