ping! On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Ajay kumar <ajaynumb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Thierry Reding > <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 05:49:24PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >>> Hi Ajay, >>> >>> On Tuesday 07 October 2014 16:06:55 Ajay kumar wrote: >>> > On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: >>> > > On 20/09/14 14:22, Ajay kumar wrote: >>> > >> Well, I am okay with using video ports to describe the relationship >>> > >> between the encoder, bridge and the panel. >>> > >> But, its just that I need to make use of 2 functions when phandle >>> > >> does it using just one function ;) >>> > >> - panel_node = of_parse_phandle(dev->of_node, "panel", 0) >>> > >> + endpoint = of_graph_get_next_endpoint(dev->of_node, NULL); >>> > >> + if (!endpoint) >>> > >> + return -EPROBE_DEFER; >>> > >> + >>> > >> + panel_node = of_graph_get_remote_port_parent(endpoint); >>> > >> + if (!panel_node) >>> > >> + return -EPROBE_DEFER; >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> If nobody else has objections over using of_graph functions instead >>> > >> of phandles, I can respin this patchset by making use of video ports. >>> > > >>> > > The discussion did digress somewhat. >>> > > >>> > > As a clarification, I'm in no way nack'ing this series because it >>> > > doesn't use the graphs for video connections. I don't see the simple >>> > > phandle bindings used here as broken as such. >>> > >>> > Well, I am okay with any approach you guys decide on. I desperately want >>> > this to get this in since it has been floating around for quite sometime. >>> > The more we drag this, the more rework for me since the number of platforms >>> > using bridge support is increasing daily! >>> >>> I won't nack this patch either. I'm however concerned that we'll run straight >>> into the wall if we don't come up with an agreement on a standard way to >>> describe connections in DT for display devices, which is why I would prefer >>> the ps8622 bindings to use OF graph to describe connections. >> >> I think there's not really an easy way out here. It's pretty bold trying >> to come up with a common way to describe bridges when we have only a >> single one (and a single use-case at that). The worst that can happen is >> that we need to change the binding at some point, in which case we may >> have to special-case early drivers, but I really don't think that's as >> much of an issue as everybody seems to think. >> >> This series has been floating around for months because we're being >> overly prudent to accept a binding that /may/ turn out to not be generic >> enough. > Right. It would be great if you guys come to agreement ASAP! > > Ajay -- 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
 |