Hi Neil, On Sun, Oct 4, 2026 at 5:51 PM Neil Armstrong <[email protected]> wrote:
> Describing it in separate distincts nodes is wrong since it doesn't reflect > that it's an unified display, so either we define : > - a "combined-display" bridge defined as: > - a separate top node in / like connectors with a graph from the DSI links > to each panel > - a DSI subnode with 2 panels as subnode, port graph from both dsi to both > sub-panels > - a "R63455" panel bindings with 2 subpanels as Linus shared in > https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAD++jLkyEPY5cFg_pHb71yG52iLwS9tQDpcHu=ttbknqmef...@mail.gmail.com/ > > I think it would be interesting to have the "combined-display", with a > connector-like node, > which will do all the split-dsi dual-panel logic for us and leave use > implementing simple panel > drivers. > > The outline would be: Overall I really like the looks of this! > xr-display { > compatible = "combined-display"; > > ports { > port@0 { > combined_dsi0: endpoint { > remote-endpoint = <&dsi0_out>; > }; > }; > port@1 { > combined_dsi1: endpoint { > remote-endpoint = <&dsi1_out>; > }; > }; > port@2 { > combined_panel0: endpoint { > remote-endpoint = <&r63455_right_in>; > }; > }; > port@3 { > combined_panel1: endpoint { > remote-endpoint = <&r63455_left_in>; > }; > }; > }; > }; The core of the crux is to make the argument that this node represents the hardware and isn't just something put in there to make it easier to implement a driver. If I break open the headset, will I find something like this, some wires going around in there or so. If yes, this is a go. Yours, Linus Walleij
