[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YkKmPSesQfS6RLCD@matsya>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 12:01:52 +0530
From: Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
To: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>, Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>,
Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
freedreno <freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: display: msm: dsi: remove address/size cells
On 28-03-22, 13:21, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 12:18 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 28/03/2022 19:16, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > > On 28-03-22, 19:43, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 at 18:30, Krzysztof Kozlowski
> > >> <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> The DSI node is not a bus and the children do not have unit addresses.
> > >>>
> > >>> Reported-by: Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
> > >>
> > >> NAK.
> > >> DSI panels are children of the DSI device tree node with the reg = <0>; address.
> > >> This is the convention used by other platforms too (see e.g.
> > >> arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx8mq-evk.dts).
> > >
> > > So we should add reg = 0, i will update my dtsi fix
> > >
> >
> > To "ports" node? No. The reg=0 is for children of the bus, so the
> > panels. How to combine both without warnings - ports and panel@0 - I
> > don't know yet...
>
> I don't think that should case a warning. Or at least it's one we turn off.
Well in this case I think we might need a fix:
Here is the example quoted in the binding. We have ports{} and then the
two port@0 and port@1 underneath.
So it should be okay to drop #address-cells/#size-cells from dsi node
but keep in ports node...
Thoughts...?
dsi@...4000 {
compatible = "qcom,mdss-dsi-ctrl";
reg = <0x0ae94000 0x400>;
reg-names = "dsi_ctrl";
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
interrupt-parent = <&mdss>;
interrupts = <4>;
clocks = <&dispcc DISP_CC_MDSS_BYTE0_CLK>,
<&dispcc DISP_CC_MDSS_BYTE0_INTF_CLK>,
<&dispcc DISP_CC_MDSS_PCLK0_CLK>,
<&dispcc DISP_CC_MDSS_ESC0_CLK>,
<&dispcc DISP_CC_MDSS_AHB_CLK>,
<&dispcc DISP_CC_MDSS_AXI_CLK>;
clock-names = "byte",
"byte_intf",
"pixel",
"core",
"iface",
"bus";
phys = <&dsi0_phy>;
phy-names = "dsi";
assigned-clocks = <&dispcc DISP_CC_MDSS_BYTE0_CLK_SRC>, <&dispcc DISP_CC_MDSS_PCLK0_CLK_SRC>;
assigned-clock-parents = <&dsi_phy 0>, <&dsi_phy 1>;
power-domains = <&rpmhpd SC7180_CX>;
operating-points-v2 = <&dsi_opp_table>;
ports {
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
port@0 {
reg = <0>;
dsi0_in: endpoint {
remote-endpoint = <&dpu_intf1_out>;
};
};
port@1 {
reg = <1>;
dsi0_out: endpoint {
remote-endpoint = <&sn65dsi86_in>;
data-lanes = <0 1 2 3>;
};
};
};
};
>
> Rob
--
~Vinod
Powered by blists - more mailing lists