On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 06:32:38PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 12/7/21 18:03, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 05:47:29PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 12/7/21 17:43, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
[...]
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/toshiba,tc358767.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/toshiba,tc358767.yaml index f1541cc05297..5cfda6f2ba69 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/toshiba,tc358767.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/toshiba,tc358767.yaml @@ -61,8 +61,8 @@ properties: port@1: $ref: /schemas/graph.yaml#/properties/port description: |
DPI input port. The remote endpoint phandle should be areference to a valid DPI output endpoint node
DPI input/output port. The remote endpoint phandle should be areference to a valid DPI output or input endpoint node.I assume the mode of operation (input or output) will be fixed for a given hardware design. Isn't this something that should be recorded in DT ? It would simplify configuration of the device in the driver.
Currently the configuration (DSI-to-DPI / DPI-to-eDP) is inferred from the presence of DPI panel. If DPI panel present, DSI-to-DPI, else, DPI-to-eDP.
I've had a look at the driver side, and it seems to complicate things quite a bit. It seems that specifying the mode of operation explicitly in DT could make software implementations quite a bit simpler.
Do you have any specific suggestion ? I explored multiple options while writing that DSI-to-DPI driver code, this one was the simplest and least redundant one.
Can we leverage the bus-type property of endpoints?
Maxime