[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGb2v67NeVjB7b57pmUN3rw8JsE+3CKEDXtT-91GiFvRRaU3cA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 21:36:57 +0100
From: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>
To: Jagan Teki <jagan@...rulasolutions.com>
Cc: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com>,
Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@...c.io>,
Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...l.net>,
Vasily Khoruzhick <anarsoul@...il.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Mike Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
linux-clk <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
Michael Trimarchi <michael@...rulasolutions.com>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/15] dt-bindings: panel: Add Bananapi S070WV20-CT16
ICN6211 MIPI-DSI to RGB bridge
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 7:08 PM Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 09:20:30PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:
> > Bananapi S070WV20-CT16 ICN6211 is 800x480, 4-lane MIPI-DSI to RGB bridge panel,
> > the same panel PCB comes with parallel RBG which is supported via
> > panel-simple driver with "bananapi,s070wv20-ct16" compatible.
> >
> > But this binding is specific for MIPI DSI to RGB bridge panels,
> > which usually accessed using MIPI DSI controller driver.
> >
> > for information:
> > - "bananapi,s070wv20-ct16" compatible for parallel RGB panels
> > - "bananapi,s070wv20-ct16-icn6211" compatible for MIPI-DSI to RGB
> > bridge panels
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jagan Teki <jagan@...rulasolutions.com>
>
> Why not just reusing the same binding document?
Agreed. Just put the MIPI-DSI-specific information you added here
into the existing document.
Rob suggested that we could even use the same compatible. That would
make sense if you are modelling the entire panel + PCB as a module,
instead of a panel node + a bridge node as I originally wanted.
Don't worry, I gave it some thought and I think having a single
combined panel node makes more sense.
ChenYu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists