On 3/19/26 9:57 AM, Laurentiu Palcu wrote:
On Fri, Mar 06, 2026 at 09:46:57AM +0100, Marco Felsch wrote:
On 26-03-06, Liu Ying wrote:
On Wed, Mar 04, 2026 at 11:34:10AM +0000, Laurentiu Palcu wrote:
i.MX94 has a single LVDS port and share similar LDB and LVDS control
registers as i.MX8MP and i.MX93.
Signed-off-by: Laurentiu Palcu <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Frank Li <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/fsl,ldb.yaml | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/fsl,ldb.yaml
b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/fsl,ldb.yaml
index 7f380879fffdf..fb70409161fc0 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/fsl,ldb.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/fsl,ldb.yaml
@@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ properties:
- fsl,imx6sx-ldb
- fsl,imx8mp-ldb
- fsl,imx93-ldb
+ - fsl,imx94-ldb
Cc'ing Marco.
Recently, Marco said that LDB node should not have a reg property...
https://lore.kernel.org/all/4sofljffovrorpxe2os3jl745qfjoglvl54oqf3v7r5bk5f6aq@6y3jwn4abiqy/
Yes, this has to be dropped. All variants of this specific "IP" use the
same approach. This "IP" is part of a general purpose register layout
with very loose reg-field definitions: e.g. resets and clk-gatting share
the same register. Or a mux reg-field shares the same register as a
MIPI-{C,D}SI configuration reg-field. Therefore this "IP" is part of a
syscon and should be abstracted as such within the DT.
Even though I understand the logic behind why 'reg' should be dropped,
I'm not exactly sure how to proceed with this. It appears Marek made the
'reg' required in this commit (merely 2 months ago):
8aa2f0ac08d3b - dt-bindings: display: bridge: ldb: Add check for reg and
reg-names
Should the above patch simply be reverted and have 'reg' as optional again?
Or should the 'reg' and 'reg-names' be removed completely from the
binding.
@Marek, any comments?
The LDB driver was always written with parsing 'reg' out of the DT, so
encoding the register offsets into the driver was a mistake. The LDB
controls two registers, which can be comfortably described in DT.
