Hello Inki,
On 12/03/2015 06:30 AM, Inki Dae wrote:
> This patch updates a ports node binding for panel.
>
> With this, dp node can have a ports node which describes
> a remote endpoint node that can be connected to panel or bridge
> node.
>
> Signed-off-by: Inki Dae <inki.dae@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> .../bindings/display/exynos/exynos_dp.txt | 28 ++++++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/exynos/exynos_dp.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/exynos/exynos_dp.txt
> index 64693f2..15b52cb 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/exynos/exynos_dp.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/exynos/exynos_dp.txt
> @@ -66,8 +66,15 @@ Optional properties for dp-controller:
> Hotplug detect GPIO.
> Indicates which GPIO should be used for hotplug
> detection
> - -video interfaces: Device node can contain video interface port
> - nodes according to [1].
> +Video interfaces:
> + Device node can contain video interface port nodes according to [1].
> + The following are properties specific to those nodes:
> +
> + endpoint node connected to bridge or panel node:
> + - remote-endpoint: specifies the endpoint in panel or bridge node.
> + This node is required in all kinds of exynos dp
> + to represent the connection between dp and bridge
> + ,or dp and panel.
>
This is nice but I think the DT binding should also document that it uses
a phandle to define the connection with the panel (but explain that is
deprecated). If only so people looking at a DTS and then going to the DT
binding can understand why there is two ways to define the same.
> [1]: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/video-interfaces.txt
>
> @@ -111,9 +118,22 @@ Board Specific portion:
> };
>
> ports {
> - port@0 {
> + #address-cells = <1>;
> + #size-cells = <0>;
> +
These two properties are only needed when there is more than 2 ports and
a reg property is used to number the port nodes but I don't think that's
the case for Exynos DP and certainly is not the case in this example so
I think you should just remove them.
> + port {
> dp_out: endpoint {
> - remote-endpoint = <&bridge_in>;
> + remote-endpoint = <&dp_in>;
> + };
> + };
> + };
> +
> + panel@0 {
> + reg = <0>;
> + ...
> + port {
> + dp_in: endpoint {
> + remote-endpoint = <&dp_out>;
> };
> };
> };
>
The rest looks good to me so with the two changes feel free to add:
Reviewed-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Best regards,
--
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America
--
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
