Tomasz Figa wrote:
> 
> Hi Vikas,
> 
> On Tuesday 30 of July 2013 16:49:32 Vikas Sajjan wrote:
> > As the display-timing information is parsed by FIMD driver, it makes
> > sense to move the display-timimg DT node inside FIMD DT node for
> > exynos5250
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Vikas Sajjan <[email protected]>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-smdk5250.dts |   29
> > ++++++++++++++++------------- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 13
> > deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-smdk5250.dts
> > b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-smdk5250.dts index 49f18c2..d176dbb
> > 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-smdk5250.dts
> > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-smdk5250.dts
> > @@ -262,19 +262,22 @@
> >             pinctrl-0 = <&dp_hpd>;
> >     };
> >
> > -   display-timings {
> > -           native-mode = <&timing0>;
> > -           timing0: timing@0 {
> > -                   /* 1280x800 */
> > -                   clock-frequency = <50000>;
> > -                   hactive = <1280>;
> > -                   vactive = <800>;
> > -                   hfront-porch = <4>;
> > -                   hback-porch = <4>;
> > -                   hsync-len = <4>;
> > -                   vback-porch = <4>;
> > -                   vfront-porch = <4>;
> > -                   vsync-len = <4>;
> > +   fimd@14400000 {
> > +           status = "okay";
> > +           display-timings {
> > +                   native-mode = <&timing0>;
> > +                   timing0: timing@0 {
> > +                           /* 1280x800 */
> > +                           clock-frequency = <50000>;
> > +                           hactive = <1280>;
> > +                           vactive = <800>;
> > +                           hfront-porch = <4>;
> > +                           hback-porch = <4>;
> > +                           hsync-len = <4>;
> > +                           vback-porch = <4>;
> > +                           vfront-porch = <4>;
> > +                           vsync-len = <4>;
> > +                   };
> >             };
> >     };
> 
> Looks good to me, but I would like some other people from the device tree
> mailing list to comment on node naming: Do we want to conform to the
> recommendation of ePAPR about node naming, which states that node names
> should be generic, not platform specific or we are free to ignore it?
>
The name of node looks good to me and the name had been being used for a
long time, and if we change that now, that will cause the bigger confusion.

- Kukjin

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to