Hi Tomasz,
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 of August 2013 14:56:55 Kukjin Kim wrote:
>> Tomasz Figa wrote:
>> > Hi Vikas,
>> >
>> > On Tuesday 30 of July 2013 16:49:32 Vikas Sajjan wrote:
>> > > As the display-timing information is parsed by FIMD driver, it makes
>> > > sense to move the display-timimg DT node inside FIMD DT node for
>> > > exynos5250
>> > >
>> > > Signed-off-by: Vikas Sajjan <vikas.sajjan@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> > > ---
>> > >
>> > > arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-smdk5250.dts | 29
>> > >
>> > > ++++++++++++++++------------- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 13
>> > > deletions(-)
>> > >
>> > > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-smdk5250.dts
>> > > b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-smdk5250.dts index 49f18c2..d176dbb
>> > > 100644
>> > > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-smdk5250.dts
>> > > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-smdk5250.dts
>> > > @@ -262,19 +262,22 @@
>> > >
>> > > pinctrl-0 = <&dp_hpd>;
>> > >
>> > > };
>> > >
>> > > - display-timings {
>> > > - native-mode = <&timing0>;
>> > > - timing0: timing@0 {
>> > > - /* 1280x800 */
>> > > - clock-frequency = <50000>;
>> > > - hactive = <1280>;
>> > > - vactive = <800>;
>> > > - hfront-porch = <4>;
>> > > - hback-porch = <4>;
>> > > - hsync-len = <4>;
>> > > - vback-porch = <4>;
>> > > - vfront-porch = <4>;
>> > > - vsync-len = <4>;
>> > > + fimd@14400000 {
>> > > + status = "okay";
>> > > + display-timings {
>> > > + native-mode = <&timing0>;
>> > > + timing0: timing@0 {
>> > > + /* 1280x800 */
>> > > + clock-frequency = <50000>;
>> > > + hactive = <1280>;
>> > > + vactive = <800>;
>> > > + hfront-porch = <4>;
>> > > + hback-porch = <4>;
>> > > + hsync-len = <4>;
>> > > + vback-porch = <4>;
>> > > + vfront-porch = <4>;
>> > > + vsync-len = <4>;
>> > > + };
>> > >
>> > > };
>> > >
>> > > };
>> >
>> > Looks good to me, but I would like some other people from the device
>> > tree mailing list to comment on node naming: Do we want to conform to
>> > the recommendation of ePAPR about node naming, which states that node
>> > names should be generic, not platform specific or we are free to
>> > ignore it?
>> The name of node looks good to me and the name had been being used for a
>> long time
>
> Like a lot of things used in device trees of ARM platforms, since we did
> not have any proper processes defined for creating device tree bindings
> and device trees themselves, including any recommended set of good
> practices.
>
> We are now trying to define all of this and so it's time to rethink all
> the DT related things that has been added for ARM platforms since the time
> DT for ARM was introduced and make sure that everything is reasonable.
>
>> , and if we change that now, that will cause the bigger
>> confusion.
>
> Still, I think this patch can go as is and node naming can be fixed in
> separate patches, including any other quirks of Exynos device trees.
>
> So, for the whole series:
>
> Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
Thanks for the review.
> Best regards,
> Tomasz
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
