> -----Original Message----- > From: linux-samsung-soc-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-samsung-soc- > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tomasz Figa > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 8:13 AM > To: Sylwester Nawrocki > Cc: Inki Dae; Rahul Sharma; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-samsung-soc; > sw0312.kim; sunil joshi; dri-devel; kgene.kim; Shirish S; Sylwester > Nawrocki; Rahul Sharma; Stephen Warren; Mark Rutland; Kumar Gala; Pawel > Moll; Rob Herring; Sean Paul > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] drm/exynos: move hdmiphy related code to hdmiphy > driver > > On Monday 30 of September 2013 00:08:46 Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: > > On 09/28/2013 06:10 PM, Inki Dae wrote: > > >> Any opinion from Device-Tree folks? > > >> > > >> IMO, we should have same consensus on Shirish patches before > > >> proceeding.> > > > Rahul, it seems that DT people have no interest in this issue. So > > > let's > > > have a consensus about this issue internally. > > > > > > To Mr. Kyungmin, Sylwester, Kukjin Kim, and Tomasz, > > > How about keeping hdmiphy config data in each board dts file? > > > > Please don't use HTML and quote only relevant part of e-mails. Otherwise > > there are good chances your messages end up in people's spam box. > > > > It often helps to Cc a DT binding maintainer directly. > > > > Then, you consider moving the HDMI phy configuration to the device tree. > > As Sean suggested in this thread: > > > > ">> +static struct hdmiphy_config hdmiphy_4210_configs[] = { > > I'd like to only add that patches introducing or modifying a device tree > binding need to be acked by at least one DT binding maintainer to be > merged. > > > >> + { > > >> + .pixel_clock = 27000000, > > >> + .conf = { > > >> + 0x01, 0x05, 0x00, 0xD8, 0x10, 0x1C, 0x30, > > >> 0x40, > > >> + 0x6B, 0x10, 0x02, 0x51, 0xDF, 0xF2, 0x54, > > >> 0x87, > > >> + 0x84, 0x00, 0x30, 0x38, 0x00, 0x08, 0x10, > > >> 0xE0, > > >> + 0x22, 0x40, 0xE3, 0x26, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, > > >> 0x00, > > >> + }, > > >> + }, > > > > [trimmed couple more entries] > > > > >> +}; > > > > > > Are you aware of the effort to move these to dt? Since these are > > > board-specific values, it seems incorrect to apply them universally. > > > Shirish has uploaded a patch to the chromium review site to push these > > > into dt (https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/#/c/65581). Maybe > > > you can work that into your patch set?" > > > > The configuration data is 64 bytes of the register values IIUC. Would it > > be possible to figure out exact meaning of each byte ? > > This is definitely something that I would go for. Then for board specific > data appropriate device tree properties could be defined, not just a > binary blob. > Agree. Thanks for your opinion. Thanks, Inki Dae > 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
 |