On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:49:43AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 06/26/2012 11:07 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 04:48:14PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
...
I actually like what you proposed above a lot, so if you don't mind either way I'll go with that proposal. Keeping the connector nodes as children of the outputs has the advantage of being able to reference them if we need it at some point. But it is also redundant in that a single output doesn't usually (never?) driver more than one connector.
Yes, I believe that each output is 1:1 with (the video portion of) a connector. The display controllers obviously aren't 1:1.
Yes, the display controllers are only 1:1 for the RGB outputs. I'll merge your proposed changes and see if I can come up with some code to parse it.
The same issue will have to be addressed for the CSI and VI nodes, but as I currently use neither of those I don't feel qualified to propose a binding for them. Also for the VI part we're completely missing documentation. Maybe somebody could push this to be released as well?
I did file a bug noting the request for VI documentation. At this point in time, it's too early to say what, if anything, will come of that.
I think we have some raw register documentation for VI but it's next to impossible to really understand the hardware block just by looking at the registers.
If I understand correctly, most of the host1x children can also be chained in a processing pipeline to do postprocessing an video input for example. I suppose that's generic and doesn't need to be represented in DT either, right?
Yes, I believe that's something internal to the driver.
Okay. So I think apart from the carveout topic in the other subthread I think we've settled on solutions for the remaining points. I'll try to find some time to work all the changes into a new binding proposal and get working on the code.
Thierry