On 2013-03-27 11:30, Benoit Cousson wrote: > Hi Tomi, > > On 03/27/2013 09:45 AM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: >> Hi, >> >> This is an RFC for OMAPDSS DT support. I've only added support for a few boards >> and a few DSS outputs, but they should give quite a good range of different use >> cases. If these work well, I think the rest of the outputs and panels will be >> ok too. >> >> The purpose of this series is to get comments about the dts changes. There are >> still work to be done, like adding DT binding documentation. >> >> Some notes: >> >> * DSS Submodules >> >> The DSS submodules are children of the dss_core node. This is done because the >> submodules require the dss_core to be alive and initialized to work, even if >> the submodules are not really behind dss_core. Having the submodules as >> children will make runtime PM automatically handle the dependency to dss_core. >> I think usually a node being a child means that it's on the parent's bus, which >> is not the case here. I'm not sure if that's an issue or not. > > FWIW, there is a L4_DSS interconnect. It is used internally to connect > all the submodules to the DSS L3 port. So this representation is > perfectly valid and does represent accurately the HW. Ah, yes, I can see it mentioned in the OMAP4430 Block Diagram figure in the TRM. No other mentions, though, I guess it's not really relevant =). But good to know that the DT representation is actually correct. Tomi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
