Hi Peter,

On Saturday 07 Jan 2017 01:29:52 Peter Senna Tschudin wrote:

On 04 January, 2017 21:39 CET, Rob Herring wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Peter Senna Tschudin wrote:

quoted

On 03 January, 2017 23:51 CET, Rob Herring [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 09:24:29PM +0100, Peter Senna Tschudin wrote:

quoted

Devicetree bindings documentation for the GE B850v3 LVDS/DP++
display bridge.

Cc: Martyn Welch <martyn.welch@collabora.co.uk>
Cc: Martin Donnelly <redacted>
Cc: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@dowhile0.org>
Cc: Enric Balletbo i Serra <redacted>
Cc: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Cc: Fabio Estevam <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Peter Senna Tschudin <redacted>
---
There was an Acked-by from Rob Herring [off-list ref] for V6, but
I changed the bindings to use i2c_new_secondary_device() so I
removed it from the commit message.

 .../devicetree/bindings/ge/b850v3-lvds-dp.txt      | 39 ++++++++++++++

Generally, bindings are not organized by vendor. Put in
bindings/display/bridge/... instead.

Will change that.

quoted

quoted

 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ge/b850v3-lvds-dp.txt

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ge/b850v3-lvds-dp.txt

b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ge/b850v3-lvds-dp.txt new file
mode 100644
index 0000000..1bc6ebf

--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ge/b850v3-lvds-dp.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Driver for GE B850v3 LVDS/DP++ display bridge
+
+Required properties:
+  - compatible : should be "ge,b850v3-lvds-dp".

Isn't '-lvds-dp' redundant? The part# should be enough.

b850v3 is the name of the product, this is why the proposed name. What
about, b850v3-dp2 dp2 indicating the second DP output?

Humm, b850v3 is the board name? This node should be the name of the bridge
chip.

From the cover letter:

-- // --
There are two physical bridges on the video signal pipeline: a STDP4028(LVDS
to DP) and a STDP2690(DP to DP++).  The hardware and firmware made it
complicated for this binding to comprise two device tree nodes, as the
design goal is to configure both bridges based on the LVDS signal, which
leave the driver powerless to control the video processing pipeline. The
two bridges behaves as a single bridge, and the driver is only needed for
telling the host about EDID / HPD, and for giving the host powers to ack
interrupts. The video signal pipeline is as follows:

  Host -> LVDS|--(STDP4028)--|DP -> DP|--(STDP2690)--|DP++ -> Video output
-- // --

You forgot to prefix your patch series with [HACK] ;-)

How about fixing the issues that make the two DT nodes solution difficult ? 
What are they ?

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart