[PATCH 3/9] Doc/DT: Add DT binding documentation for DVI Connector (original) (raw)

Warner Losh bsdimp at gmail.com
Fri Feb 28 08:28:22 PST 2014

On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux at arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 06:12:23PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:

On 28/02/14 17:59, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

+dvi0: connector at 0 { + compatible = "dvi-connector"; + label = "dvi"; + + i2c-bus = <&i2c3>; + + dviconnectorin: endpoint { + remote-endpoint = <&tfp410out>; + }; +}; This looks far too simplistic. There are different classes of DVI connector - there is: DVI A - analogue only DVI D - digital only (single and dual link) DVI I - both (single and dual digital link) DRM at least makes a distinction between these three classes, and this disctinction is part of the user API. How would a display system know which kind of DVI connector is wired up on the board from this DT description? Yes, I think that's a valid change. But do we also need to specify single/dual link, in addition to the three types? I would argue that as it's a difference in physical hardware, then it should be described in DT, even if we don't use it. The reasoning is that although we may not use it today, we may need to use it in the future, and as we're describing what the hardware actually is - and even in this case what pins may be present or missing on the connector, it's unlikely to be problematical (the only problem is when someone omits it...)

And the “we” that uses the DT files is larger than just the Linux, and one of those systems may use it.

Warner

More information about the dri-devel mailing list