On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 02:52:42PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
On 27/08/14 17:39, Ajay Kumar wrote:
Add documentation for DT properties supported by ps8622/ps8625 eDP-LVDS converter.
Signed-off-by: Ajay Kumar ajaykumar.rs@samsung.com
.../devicetree/bindings/video/bridge/ps8622.txt | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/video/bridge/ps8622.txt
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/video/bridge/ps8622.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/video/bridge/ps8622.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..0ec8172 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/video/bridge/ps8622.txt @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ +ps8622-bridge bindings
+Required properties:
- compatible: "parade,ps8622" or "parade,ps8625"
- reg: first i2c address of the bridge
- sleep-gpios: OF device-tree gpio specification for PD_ pin.
- reset-gpios: OF device-tree gpio specification for RST_ pin.
+Optional properties:
- lane-count: number of DP lanes to use
- use-external-pwm: backlight will be controlled by an external PWM
What does this mean? That the backlight support from ps8625 is not used? If so, maybe "disable-pwm" or something?
+Example:
- lvds-bridge@48 {
compatible = "parade,ps8622";reg = <0x48>;sleep-gpios = <&gpc3 6 1 0 0>;reset-gpios = <&gpc3 1 1 0 0>;lane-count = <1>;- };
I wish all new display component bindings would use the video ports/endpoints to describe the connections. It will be very difficult to improve the display driver model later if we're missing such critical pieces from the DT bindings.
I disagree. Why would we want to burden all devices with a bloated binding and drivers with parsing a complex graph when it's not even known that it will be necessary? Evidently this device works fine using the current binding. Just because there are bindings to describe ports in a generic way doesn't mean it has to be applied everywhere. After all the concept of ports/endpoints applies to non-video devices too, yet we don't require the bindings for those devices to add ports or endpoints nodes.
Also it won't be very difficult to extend the binding in a backwards compatible way if that becomes necessary.
One thing that I'd like to see in this binding, though, is how to hook up the bridge to a panel. However I'm still catching up on mail after vacation, so perhaps this has already been discussed further down the thread.
Thierry