On 07/03/14 14:22, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> I think we should even extend the bindings to fimd:
> dsi {
> port@0 {
> dsi_0: endpoint {
> remote-endpoint=<&fimd_0>;
> }
> }
> port@1 {
> dsi_1: endpoint {
> remote-endpoint=<&lvds_0>;
> }
> }
> }
>
> fimd {
> port@0 {
> fimd_0: endpoint {
> remote-endpoint=<&dsi_0>;
> }
> }
> }
If both fimd and dsi are SoC components, I don't see any strict need for
that. I think the ports/endpoints are only important when dealing with
external components, which can be used on any platform. For SoC internal
components you can have relevant data directly in the drivers, as it is
fixed (for that SoC).
Of course, if using ports for SoC internal components makes things
easier for you, I don't see any problems with it either.
For OMAP, the SoC's display blocks are all inside one bigger DSS
"container", so I have not seen need to represent the connections
between the internal components in the DT data.
If the display components were truly independent IPs on the SoC, then
using ports might make things easier.
Tomi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
