On Wed, Sep 30, 2026 at 6:43 PM Neil Armstrong <[email protected]> wrote: > On 9/30/26 09:44, Linus Walleij wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 3:35 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The current binding does not reflect the physical topology of the > > actual device, and the bindings need improvements. I have a feeling > > there is one display controller with two physical panels. > > No there's really 2 controller and 2 separate panels, but they are not > classic panel, they are a pair of panels+lens which are in front of > the eyes which forms a single "image" for the brain, so they are > technically a single display and requires to be hard synchronized. OK > See it like a single physical panel with 2 controllers which > shouldn't be used separately. If you have one reset line to them each, and as proven by the driver in this series also grab and assert both, they are by definition *already* used separately. DT needs to describe the hardware. Defining two nodes below the main node for the two controllers and adding a reset line to each describes the hardware perfectly fine? It's not like I don't understand that this will complicate things on the drivers side, of course it does. But a binding is a binding is a binding. It needs to describe the hardware. Yours, Linus Walleij
