[PATCH] ARM: dts: imx: Fix incorrect display nodes notation

Hi Marco,

On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 14:43 -0300, Marco Franchi wrote:

The following build warnings are seen with W=1:

quoted

Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /display at di0 has a unit name, but no reg property
Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /display at di1 has a unit name, but no reg property

Fix all these warnings by changing 'display at diX' to 'dispX'.

Signed-off-by: Marco Franchi <redacted>

Thank you for fixing this. Mostly

Acked-by: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>

but I have one remark regarding i.MX51. While on the later SoCs the
parallel display interface pad groups are called DISP0 and DISP1 in the
reference manual, on i.MX51 they were called DISP1 and DISP2 [1].
This is already reflected by the pin function ids: MX51_PAD_DISP[12]_*.

Also, the display ports are currently inconsistently named across the
i.MX51 board device trees, see below. Should we use this opportunity to
also fix this inconsistency?

[1] https://www.nxp.com/docs/en/reference-manual/MCIMX51RM.pdf

---
I have already submitted a fix for the Documentation bindings:
https://git.pengutronix.de/cgit/pza/linux/commit/?h=imx-drm/next&id=db
fdd153d4aefec13460c97475737e59af92d8e2

?arch/arm/boot/dts/imx51-apf51dev.dts??????????| 2 +-
?arch/arm/boot/dts/imx51-babbage.dts???????????| 4 ++--
?arch/arm/boot/dts/imx51-ts4800.dts????????????| 2 +-

[...]

This is actually DISP1 in the reference manual (connected to IPU DI0):

????????????????pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_ipu_disp1>;
????????????????port {
????????????????????????display_in: endpoint {
????????????????????????????????remote-endpoint = <&ipu_di0_disp0>;???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????};
????????????????};

The remote endpoint should be renamed to ipu_di0_disp1 for consistency.

This is also DISP1 in the reference manual (connected to IPU DI0):

		pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_ipu_disp1>;
????????????????port {
????????????????????????display0_in: endpoint {
???
?????????????????????????????remote-endpoint = <&ipu_di0_disp0>;
????????
????????????????};
????????????????};

@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@

?		};
?	};
?
-	display1: display at di1 {
+	display1: disp1 {
?		compatible = "fsl,imx-parallel-display";
?		interface-pix-fmt = "rgb565";
?		pinctrl-names = "default";

And this is actually DISP2 in the reference manual (connected to IPU
DI1):
		pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_ipu_disp2>;
????????????????port {
????????????????????????display1_in: endpoint {
????????????????????????????????remote-endpoint = <&ipu_di1_disp1>;
????????????????????????};
????????????????};

The remote endpoint should be renamed to ipu_di1_disp2.

And this is also DISP1 according to the reference manual.

regards
Philipp