On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas
wrote:
> Hello Ajay,
>
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Laurent Pinchart
> wrote:
>>>
>>> Right. It would be great if you guys come to agreement ASAP!
>>
>> I don't think we'll agree any time soon, so I believe it's up to you to
>> dec
Hello Ajay,
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Laurent Pinchart
wrote:
>>
>> Right. It would be great if you guys come to agreement ASAP!
>
> I don't think we'll agree any time soon, so I believe it's up to you to decide
> which option is best based on all arguments that have been presented.
>
Di
ping!
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Ajay kumar wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Thierry Reding
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 05:49:24PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>> Hi Ajay,
>>>
>>> On Tuesday 07 October 2014 16:06:55 Ajay kumar wrote:
>>> > On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:00 PM
Hi Ajay,
On Friday 10 October 2014 18:33:05 Ajay kumar wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 05:49:24PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >> On Tuesday 07 October 2014 16:06:55 Ajay kumar wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Tomi Valkei
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Thierry Reding
wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 05:49:24PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>> Hi Ajay,
>>
>> On Tuesday 07 October 2014 16:06:55 Ajay kumar wrote:
>> > On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>> > > On 20/09/14 14:22, Ajay kumar wrote:
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 05:49:24PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Ajay,
>
> On Tuesday 07 October 2014 16:06:55 Ajay kumar wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> > > On 20/09/14 14:22, Ajay kumar wrote:
> > >> Well, I am okay with using video ports to describe the
Hi Tomi,
On Tuesday 07 October 2014 11:25:56 Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 07/10/14 10:23, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >> You mean the bridge driver would somehow take a peek into panel1 and
> >> panel2 nodes, looking for bridge specific properties? Sounds somewhat
> >> fragile to me... How would the b
Hi Ajay,
On Tuesday 07 October 2014 16:06:55 Ajay kumar wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> > On 20/09/14 14:22, Ajay kumar wrote:
> >> Well, I am okay with using video ports to describe the relationship
> >> between the encoder, bridge and the panel.
> >> But, its jus
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 20/09/14 14:22, Ajay kumar wrote:
>
>> Well, I am okay with using video ports to describe the relationship
>> between the encoder, bridge and the panel.
>> But, its just that I need to make use of 2 functions when phandle
>> does it using
On 20/09/14 14:22, Ajay kumar wrote:
> Well, I am okay with using video ports to describe the relationship
> between the encoder, bridge and the panel.
> But, its just that I need to make use of 2 functions when phandle
> does it using just one function ;)
> -panel_node = of_parse_phandle(
On 07/10/14 10:23, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>> You mean the bridge driver would somehow take a peek into panel1 and
>> panel2 nodes, looking for bridge specific properties? Sounds somewhat
>> fragile to me... How would the bridge driver know a property is for the
>> bridge?
>
> No, I mean the brid
Hi Tomi,
On Tuesday 07 October 2014 10:06:10 Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 06/10/14 17:40, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >> But seriously speaking, I was thinking about this. I'd really like to
> >> have a generic video-mux node, that would still somehow allow us to have
> >> device specific configuratio
On 06/10/14 17:40, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>> But seriously speaking, I was thinking about this. I'd really like to
>> have a generic video-mux node, that would still somehow allow us to have
>> device specific configurations for the video sources and sinks (which
>> the endpoints provide us), wit
Hi Tomi,
On Wednesday 24 September 2014 11:42:06 Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 23/09/14 17:45, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 02:31:35PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> >> On 23/09/14 12:39, Thierry Reding wrote:
> >>> My point is that if you use plain phandles you usually have the
Hi Thierry,
On Tuesday 23 September 2014 16:49:38 Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 02:52:24PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Tuesday 23 September 2014 13:47:40 Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> >> On 09/23/2014 01:23 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> [...]
>
> >>> This becomes an issue eve
Hi Tomi and Thierry,
On Monday 06 October 2014 14:34:00 Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 25/09/14 09:23, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > How are cameras different? The CPU wants to capture video data from the
> > camera, so it needs to go look for a video capture device, which in turn
> > needs to involve a s
On 25/09/14 09:23, Thierry Reding wrote:
> How are cameras different? The CPU wants to capture video data from the
> camera, so it needs to go look for a video capture device, which in turn
> needs to involve a sensor.
Let's say we have an XXX-to-YYY encoder. We use that encoder to convert
the So
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:08:37PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 23/09/14 17:58, Thierry Reding wrote:
>
> >> But if a panel driver controls its video source, it makes sense for the
> >> panel driver to get its video source in its probe, and that happens
> >> easiest if the panel has a link to
On 23/09/14 17:58, Thierry Reding wrote:
>> But if a panel driver controls its video source, it makes sense for the
>> panel driver to get its video source in its probe, and that happens
>> easiest if the panel has a link to the video source.
>
> That's an orthogonal problem. You speak about the
On 23/09/14 17:45, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 02:31:35PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>> On 23/09/14 12:39, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>
>>> My point is that if you use plain phandles you usually have the
>>> meta-data already. Referring to the above example, bridge0 knows that it
On 23/09/14 17:41, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 12:34:54PM +0200, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
>> On 09/23/2014 12:10 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:43:47AM +0200, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
On 09/23/2014 10:35 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>> [...]
> But I agre
On 09/23/2014 04:41 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 12:34:54PM +0200, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
>> On 09/23/2014 12:10 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:43:47AM +0200, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
On 09/23/2014 10:35 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>> [...]
> But I
On 23/09/14 17:38, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 03:09:44PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>> On 23/09/14 13:01, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 12:40:24PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> [...]
What exactly is a bridge and what is an encoder? Those are DRM
On 23/09/14 17:29, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>> Trying to do this within the bridge's node directly has two flaws:
>>>
>>> 1) It violates the DT principle of describing hardware. The
>>>device itself does not know anything about multiple streams
>>>and deals only with a single inp
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 03:00:31PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 23/09/14 12:53, Thierry Reding wrote:
>
> >> Yes, but in this case we know of existing boards that have complex
> >> setups. It's not theoretical.
> >
> > Complex setups involving /this particular/ bridge and binding are
> > the
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 02:12:52PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 September 2014 11:53:15 Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 12:30:20PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> > > On 23/09/14 09:21, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > >> Well, I can write almost any kind of bindings,
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 02:52:24PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 September 2014 13:47:40 Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> > On 09/23/2014 01:23 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
[...]
> > > This becomes an issue even on Linux when considering video-related devices
> > > that can be part of either
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 02:31:35PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 23/09/14 12:39, Thierry Reding wrote:
>
> > My point is that if you use plain phandles you usually have the
> > meta-data already. Referring to the above example, bridge0 knows that it
> > should look for a bridge with phandle &b
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 12:34:54PM +0200, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> On 09/23/2014 12:10 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:43:47AM +0200, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> >> On 09/23/2014 10:35 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > [...]
> >>> But I agree that it would be nice to unify bridges and
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 03:09:44PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 23/09/14 13:01, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 12:40:24PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
[...]
> >> What exactly is a bridge and what is an encoder? Those are DRM
> >> constructs, aren't they?
> >
> > Yes. I thin
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 02:15:54PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 23/09/14 12:28, Thierry Reding wrote:
>
> >> But, for example, let's say that the board is designed in a way that for
> >> panel0 the bridge needs to output a bit higher level voltages than for
> >> panel1. That's not a property
On 23/09/14 13:01, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 12:40:24PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>> On 23/09/14 11:35, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>
>>> Well, a display controller is never going to attach to a panel directly.
>>
>> With parallel RGB, that (almost) happens. There's voltage leve
On 23/09/14 12:53, Thierry Reding wrote:
>> Yes, but in this case we know of existing boards that have complex
>> setups. It's not theoretical.
>
> Complex setups involving /this particular/ bridge and binding are
> theoretical at this point, however.
Right, but this discussion, at least from my
On Tuesday 23 September 2014 13:47:40 Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> On 09/23/2014 01:23 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Tuesday 23 September 2014 13:18:30 Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> >> On 09/23/2014 01:10 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday 23 September 2014 12:02:45 Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> On
Hi Thierry,
On Tuesday 23 September 2014 07:55:34 Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 03:00:37AM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Monday 22 September 2014 13:35:15 Thierry Reding wrote:
> >> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 04:53:22PM +0530, Ajay kumar wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at
On 09/23/2014 01:52 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 September 2014 13:47:40 Andrzej Hajda wrote:
>> On 09/23/2014 01:23 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 23 September 2014 13:18:30 Andrzej Hajda wrote:
On 09/23/2014 01:10 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 Sep
Hi Thierry,
On Tuesday 23 September 2014 12:10:33 Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:43:47AM +0200, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> > On 09/23/2014 10:35 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> [...]
>
> > > But I agree that it would be nice to unify bridges and encoders more. It
> > > should be possi
On 23/09/14 12:39, Thierry Reding wrote:
> My point is that if you use plain phandles you usually have the
> meta-data already. Referring to the above example, bridge0 knows that it
> should look for a bridge with phandle &bridge1, whereas bridge1 knows
> that the device it is connected to is a pa
On Tuesday 23 September 2014 13:18:30 Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> On 09/23/2014 01:10 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Tuesday 23 September 2014 12:02:45 Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> >> On 09/23/2014 11:30 AM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> >>> On 23/09/14 09:21, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > Well, I can write alm
On 23/09/14 12:28, Thierry Reding wrote:
>> But, for example, let's say that the board is designed in a way that for
>> panel0 the bridge needs to output a bit higher level voltages than for
>> panel1. That's not a property of the panel, so it can't be queried from
>> the panel.
>>
>> That feature
On Tuesday 23 September 2014 11:53:15 Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 12:30:20PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> > On 23/09/14 09:21, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > >> Well, I can write almost any kind of bindings, and then evidently my
> > >> device would work. For me, on my board.
> > >
On Tuesday 23 September 2014 12:02:45 Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> On 09/23/2014 11:30 AM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> > On 23/09/14 09:21, Thierry Reding wrote:
> >>> Well, I can write almost any kind of bindings, and then evidently my
> >>> device would work. For me, on my board.
> >>
> >> Well, that's th
On 09/23/2014 01:23 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 September 2014 13:18:30 Andrzej Hajda wrote:
>> On 09/23/2014 01:10 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 23 September 2014 12:02:45 Andrzej Hajda wrote:
On 09/23/2014 11:30 AM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 23/09/14 09:21,
On 09/23/2014 01:10 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 September 2014 12:02:45 Andrzej Hajda wrote:
>> On 09/23/2014 11:30 AM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>>> On 23/09/14 09:21, Thierry Reding wrote:
> Well, I can write almost any kind of bindings, and then evidently my
> device would wo
On 23/09/14 11:35, Thierry Reding wrote:
> Well, a display controller is never going to attach to a panel directly.
With parallel RGB, that (almost) happens. There's voltage level shifting
probably in the middle, but I don't see anything else there.
> But I agree that it would be nice to unify b
On 09/23/2014 12:10 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:43:47AM +0200, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
>> On 09/23/2014 10:35 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> [...]
>>> But I agree that it would be nice to unify bridges and encoders more. It
>>> should be possible to make encoder always a bridge
On 23/09/14 09:21, Thierry Reding wrote:
>> Well, I can write almost any kind of bindings, and then evidently my
>> device would work. For me, on my board.
>
> Well, that's the whole problem with DT. For many devices we only have a
> single setup to test against. And even when we have several the
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:43:47AM +0200, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> On 09/23/2014 10:35 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
[...]
> > But I agree that it would be nice to unify bridges and encoders more. It
> > should be possible to make encoder always a bridge (or perhaps even
> > replace encoders with bridges
On 09/23/2014 11:30 AM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 23/09/14 09:21, Thierry Reding wrote:
>
>>> Well, I can write almost any kind of bindings, and then evidently my
>>> device would work. For me, on my board.
>>
>> Well, that's the whole problem with DT. For many devices we only have a
>> single se
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 12:40:24PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 23/09/14 11:35, Thierry Reding wrote:
>
> > Well, a display controller is never going to attach to a panel directly.
>
> With parallel RGB, that (almost) happens. There's voltage level shifting
> probably in the middle, but I do
On 23/09/14 09:04, Thierry Reding wrote:
> I certainly agree that it's useful to have standard ways to describe at
> least various aspects. For example I think it would be useful to add
> standard properties for a bridge's connections, such as "bridge" or
> "panel" to allow bridge chaining and att
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 12:30:20PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 23/09/14 09:21, Thierry Reding wrote:
>
> >> Well, I can write almost any kind of bindings, and then evidently my
> >> device would work. For me, on my board.
> >
> > Well, that's the whole problem with DT. For many devices we o
On 09/23/2014 10:35 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 09:24:12AM +0200, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
>> Hi Thierry, Tomi,
>>
>> On 09/23/2014 08:04 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 05:23:25PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
On 22/09/14 11:06, Thierry Reding wrote:
>
On 23/09/14 08:53, Thierry Reding wrote:
>> Yes, it's true we need a mux there. But we still have the complication
>> that for panel0 we may need different ps8622 settings than for panel1.
>
> Yes, and that's why the bridge should be querying the panel for the
> information it needs to determine
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Thierry Reding
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 03:00:37AM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>> On Monday 22 September 2014 13:35:15 Thierry Reding wrote:
>> > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 04:53:22PM +0530, Ajay kumar wrote:
>> > > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Thierry
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:54:27AM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 23/09/14 09:04, Thierry Reding wrote:
>
> > I certainly agree that it's useful to have standard ways to describe at
> > least various aspects. For example I think it would be useful to add
> > standard properties for a bridge's c
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:41:52AM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 23/09/14 08:53, Thierry Reding wrote:
>
> >> Yes, it's true we need a mux there. But we still have the complication
> >> that for panel0 we may need different ps8622 settings than for panel1.
> >
> > Yes, and that's why the brid
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 09:24:12AM +0200, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> Hi Thierry, Tomi,
>
> On 09/23/2014 08:04 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 05:23:25PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> >> On 22/09/14 11:06, Thierry Reding wrote:
> >>
> > Why do we need a complex graph when it
Hi Thierry, Tomi,
On 09/23/2014 08:04 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 05:23:25PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>> On 22/09/14 11:06, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>
> Why do we need a complex graph when it can be handled using a simple
> phandle?
Maybe in your case y
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:41:33AM +0530, Ajay kumar wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Thierry Reding
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 03:00:37AM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >> On Monday 22 September 2014 13:35:15 Thierry Reding wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 04:53:22PM +0
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 05:04:54PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 22/09/14 10:54, Thierry Reding wrote:
>
> >> I wish all new display component bindings would use the video
> >> ports/endpoints to describe the connections. It will be very difficult
> >> to improve the display driver model later
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 05:23:25PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 22/09/14 11:06, Thierry Reding wrote:
>
> >>> Why do we need a complex graph when it can be handled using a simple
> >>> phandle?
> >>
> >> Maybe in your case you can handle it with simple phandle. Can you
> >> guarantee that it
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 03:00:37AM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Monday 22 September 2014 13:35:15 Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 04:53:22PM +0530, Ajay kumar wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 02:01:38PM +053
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 05:42:41PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 22/09/14 11:26, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 05:28:37PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> >> On 19/09/14 16:59, Ajay kumar wrote:
> >>
> >>> I am not really able to understand, what's stopping us from using this
On Monday 22 September 2014 13:35:15 Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 04:53:22PM +0530, Ajay kumar wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 02:01:38PM +0530, Ajay kumar wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Thierry Redin
On 20/09/14 18:27, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> I see that Documentation/devicetree/bindings/video/ti,omap-dss.txt
> mentions that the Video Ports binding documentation is in
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/video/video-ports.txt but I don't
> see that this file exists in the kernel [1]. I
On 22/09/14 11:26, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 05:28:37PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>> On 19/09/14 16:59, Ajay kumar wrote:
>>
>>> I am not really able to understand, what's stopping us from using this
>>> bridge on a board with "complex" display connections. To use ps8622 dr
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Thierry Reding
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 04:53:22PM +0530, Ajay kumar wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Thierry Reding
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 02:01:38PM +0530, Ajay kumar wrote:
>> >> Hi Thierry,
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at
On 22/09/14 11:06, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>> Why do we need a complex graph when it can be handled using a simple
>>> phandle?
>>
>> Maybe in your case you can handle it with simple phandle. Can you
>> guarantee that it's enough for everyone, on all platforms?
>
> Nobody can guarantee that. An i
On 22/09/14 10:54, Thierry Reding wrote:
>> I wish all new display component bindings would use the video
>> ports/endpoints to describe the connections. It will be very difficult
>> to improve the display driver model later if we're missing such critical
>> pieces from the DT bindings.
>
> I dis
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Thierry Reding
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 02:01:38PM +0530, Ajay kumar wrote:
>> Hi Thierry,
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Thierry Reding
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:20:40AM +0530, Ajay kumar wrote:
>> >> Hi Tomi,
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, S
Hi Thierry,
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Thierry Reding
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:20:40AM +0530, Ajay kumar wrote:
>> Hi Tomi,
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Tomi Valkeinen
>> wrote:
>> > On 17/09/14 17:29, Ajay kumar wrote:
>> >> Hi Tomi,
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for your comme
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 04:53:22PM +0530, Ajay kumar wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Thierry Reding
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 02:01:38PM +0530, Ajay kumar wrote:
> >> Hi Thierry,
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Thierry Reding
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 02:01:38PM +0530, Ajay kumar wrote:
> Hi Thierry,
>
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Thierry Reding
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:20:40AM +0530, Ajay kumar wrote:
> >> Hi Tomi,
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Tomi Valkeinen
> >> wrote:
> >> > On 17
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas
wrote:
> [adding Kukjin as cc]
>
> Hello Ajay,
>
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Ajay kumar wrote:
>>> Generally speaking, I sense that we have different views of how display
>>> devices and drivers are structured. You say "If some XYZ
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 05:28:37PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 19/09/14 16:59, Ajay kumar wrote:
>
> > I am not really able to understand, what's stopping us from using this
> > bridge on a board with "complex" display connections. To use ps8622 driver,
> > one needs to "attach" it to the DR
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:20:40AM +0530, Ajay kumar wrote:
> Hi Tomi,
>
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Tomi Valkeinen
> wrote:
> > On 17/09/14 17:29, Ajay kumar wrote:
> >> Hi Tomi,
> >>
> >> Thanks for your comments.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Tomi Valkeinen
> >> wrote:
>
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 07:22:05PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 17/09/14 17:29, Ajay kumar wrote:
> > Hi Tomi,
> >
> > Thanks for your comments.
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Tomi Valkeinen
> > wrote:
> >> On 27/08/14 17:39, Ajay Kumar wrote:
> >>> Add documentation for DT prope
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 02:52:42PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 27/08/14 17:39, Ajay Kumar wrote:
> > Add documentation for DT properties supported by ps8622/ps8625
> > eDP-LVDS converter.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ajay Kumar
> > ---
> > .../devicetree/bindings/video/bridge/ps8622.txt| 2
[adding Kukjin as cc]
Hello Ajay,
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Ajay kumar wrote:
>> Generally speaking, I sense that we have different views of how display
>> devices and drivers are structured. You say "If some XYZ platform wishes
>> to pick the DT node via a different method, they are alwa
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Tomi Valkeinen
wrote:
> On 19/09/14 16:59, Ajay kumar wrote:
>
>> I am not really able to understand, what's stopping us from using this
>> bridge on a board with "complex" display connections. To use ps8622 driver,
>> one needs to "attach" it to the DRM framework
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Tomi Valkeinen
wrote:
> On 18/09/14 08:50, Ajay kumar wrote:
>
Why do we need a complex graph when it can be handled using a simple
phandle?
>>>
>>> Maybe in your case you can handle it with simple phandle. Can you
>>> guarantee that it's enough for eve
On 19/09/14 16:59, Ajay kumar wrote:
> I am not really able to understand, what's stopping us from using this
> bridge on a board with "complex" display connections. To use ps8622 driver,
> one needs to "attach" it to the DRM framework. For this, the DRM driver
Remember that when we talk about DT
On 18/09/14 08:50, Ajay kumar wrote:
>>> Why do we need a complex graph when it can be handled using a simple
>>> phandle?
>>
>> Maybe in your case you can handle it with simple phandle. Can you
>> guarantee that it's enough for everyone, on all platforms?
> Yes, as of now exynos5420-peach-pit an
Hi Tomi,
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Tomi Valkeinen
wrote:
> On 17/09/14 17:29, Ajay kumar wrote:
>> Hi Tomi,
>>
>> Thanks for your comments.
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Tomi Valkeinen
>> wrote:
>>> On 27/08/14 17:39, Ajay Kumar wrote:
Add documentation for DT properties s
Hi Tomi,
Thanks for your comments.
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Tomi Valkeinen
wrote:
> On 27/08/14 17:39, Ajay Kumar wrote:
>> Add documentation for DT properties supported by ps8622/ps8625
>> eDP-LVDS converter.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ajay Kumar
>> ---
>> .../devicetree/bindings/video/bri
On 17/09/14 17:29, Ajay kumar wrote:
> Hi Tomi,
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Tomi Valkeinen
> wrote:
>> On 27/08/14 17:39, Ajay Kumar wrote:
>>> Add documentation for DT properties supported by ps8622/ps8625
>>> eDP-LVDS converter.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Aj
On 27/08/14 17:39, Ajay Kumar wrote:
> Add documentation for DT properties supported by ps8622/ps8625
> eDP-LVDS converter.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ajay Kumar
> ---
> .../devicetree/bindings/video/bridge/ps8622.txt| 20
>
> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
> create mode 1
Add documentation for DT properties supported by ps8622/ps8625
eDP-LVDS converter.
Signed-off-by: Ajay Kumar
---
.../devicetree/bindings/video/bridge/ps8622.txt| 20
1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/video/bridge/ps8
89 matches
Mail list logo
