[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdVPsT=1R7DAnmui+iaWcnoy52Xrr47zLWbgmUumBZ2sdw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 09:57:35 +0200
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Fabrizio Castro <fabrizio.castro@...renesas.com>
Cc: David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
DRI Development <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
Chris Paterson <Chris.Paterson2@...esas.com>,
Biju Das <biju.das@...renesas.com>,
Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham+renesas@...asonboard.com>,
Jacopo Mondi <jacopo+renesas@...ndi.org>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/8] dt-bindings: display: Add bindings for LVDS bus-timings
Hi Fabrizio,
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 8:36 PM Fabrizio Castro
<fabrizio.castro@...renesas.com> wrote:
> Dual-LVDS connections need markers in the DT, this patch adds
> some common documentation to be referenced by both panels and
> bridges.
>
> Signed-off-by: Fabrizio Castro <fabrizio.castro@...renesas.com>
Thanks for your patch!
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bus-timings/lvds.yaml
> @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +%YAML 1.2
> +---
> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/display/bus-timings/lvds.yaml#
> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> +
> +title: Common Properties for bus timings of LVDS interfaces
> +
> +maintainers:
> + - Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
> + - Fabrizio Castro <fabrizio.castro@...renesas.com>
> +
> +description: |
> + This document defines device tree properties common to LVDS and dual-LVDS
> + interfaces, where a dual-LVDS interface is a dual-link connection with even
> + pixels traveling on one connection, and with odd pixels traveling on the other
> + connection.
> + This document doesn't constitue a device tree binding specification by itself
> + but is meant to be referenced by device tree bindings.
> + When referenced from panel or bridge device tree bindings, the properties
> + defined in this document are defined as follows. The panel and bridge device
> + tree bindings are responsible for defining whether each property is required
> + or optional.
> +
> +properties:
> + dual-lvds-even-pixels:
> + type: boolean
> + description:
> + This property is specific to an input port of a sink device. When
> + specified, it marks the port as recipient of even-pixels.
> +
> + dual-lvds-odd-pixels:
> + type: boolean
> + description:
> + This property is specific to an input port of a sink device. When
> + specified, it marks the port as recipient of odd-pixels.
Do you need the "dual-" prefix? Isn't that implied by even/odd?
Or is it better to keep it, for readability?
I'm also thinking about a possible future extension to triple or quad LVDS.
As I'm not aware of English word equivalents of even/odd for triple/quad,
perhaps this should be specified using a numerical value instead?
If I go too far, please just say so ;-)
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
Powered by blists - more mailing lists