On 23/09/14 12:39, Thierry Reding wrote:
My point is that if you use plain phandles you usually have the meta-data already. Referring to the above example, bridge0 knows that it should look for a bridge with phandle &bridge1, whereas bridge1 knows that the device it is connected to is a panel.
The bridge should not care what kind of device is there on the other end. The bridge just has an output, going to another video component.
Well, I can't say about this particular bridge, but afaik you can connect a parallel RGB signal to multiple panels just like that, without any muxing.
Right, but in that case you're not reconfiguring the signal in any way for each of the panels. You send one single signal to all of them. For
Yes, that's one use case, cloning. But I was not talking about that.
all intents and purposes there is only one panel. Well, I guess you could have separate backlights for the panels. In that case though it seems better to represent it at least as a virtual mux or bridge, or perhaps a "mux panel".
I was talking about the case where you have two totally different devices, let's say panels, connected to the same output. One could take a 16-bit parallel RGB signal, the other 24-bit. Only one of them can be enabled at a time (from HW perspective both can be enabled at the same time, but then the other one shows garbage).
Tomi