On Wed, May 13, 2026 at 12:26:40PM +0200, Marco Felsch wrote:
> On 26-05-07, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Thu, May 7, 2026 at 6:55 AM Marco Felsch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > > But nowhere have you said the LDB registers are mixed with other
> > > > functions. If they aren't, then there is absolutely nothing to change
> > > > in the binding. If they are, then yes, we shouldn't have 'reg'.
> > >
> > > No they aren't mixed with other functions (for now).
> >
> > For now? Is the h/w going to change or is the binding *still* incomplete.
>
> Sorry for the confusion. By for now I mean that NXP tend to reuse IPs
> but with minor changes. So no, the binding is not incomplete with our
> current HW knowledge.
If such changes occur, then we can deal with it at that time.
> > > Can you please
> > > confirm that mixing 'reg' based sub-device nodes with non 'reg' based
> > > sub-device nodes is allowed? E.g. if the below example is allowed?
> > >
> > > system-controller@4ac10000 {
> > > compatible = "fsl,imx93-media-blk-ctrl", "syscon";
> > > reg = <0x4ac10000 0x10000>;
> > > #address-cells = <1>;
> > > #size-cells = <1>;
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > bridge@5c {
> > > compatible = "fsl,imx8mp-ldb";
> > > reg = <0x5c 0x4>, <0x128 0x4>;
> > > reg-names = "ldb", "lvds";
> > >
> > > ...
> > > };
> > >
> > > dpi-bridge {
> > > compatible = "nxp,imx93-pdfc";
> > >
> > > ...
> >
> > Depends what is in "...". If only a compatible, then no. If there are
> > actual resources defined, then yes.
>
> Please see the below full example, is this allowed?
>
> system-controller@4ac10000 {
> compatible = "fsl,imx93-media-blk-ctrl", "syscon";
> reg = <0x4ac10000 0x10000>;
> #address-cells = <1>;
> #size-cells = <1>;
>
> ...
>
> bridge@5c {
> compatible = "fsl,imx8mp-ldb";
> reg = <0x5c 0x4>, <0x128 0x4>;
> reg-names = "ldb", "lvds";
> clocks = <&clk IMX8MP_CLK_MEDIA_LDB_ROOT>;
> clock-names = "ldb";
> assigned-clocks = <&clk IMX8MP_CLK_MEDIA_LDB>;
> assigned-clock-parents = <&clk IMX8MP_VIDEO_PLL1_OUT>;
> status = "disabled";
>
> ports {
> #address-cells = <1>;
> #size-cells = <0>;
>
> port@0 {
> reg = <0>;
>
> ldb_from_lcdif2: endpoint {
> remote-endpoint = <&lcdif2_to_ldb>;
> };
> };
>
> port@1 {
> reg = <1>;
>
> ldb_lvds_ch0: endpoint {
> };
> };
>
> port@2 {
> reg = <2>;
>
> ldb_lvds_ch1: endpoint {
> };
> };
> };
> };
>
> dpi-bridge {
> compatible = "nxp,imx93-pdfc";
> status = "disabled";
>
> ports {
> #address-cells = <1>;
> #size-cells = <0>;
>
> port@0 {
> reg = <0>;
>
> dpi_from_lcdif: endpoint {
> remote-endpoint = <&lcdif_to_dpi>;
> };
> };
>
> port@1 {
> reg = <1>;
>
> dpi_to_panel: endpoint {
> };
> };
> };
> };
> };
Yes, this seems fine.
Rob
