On 28/02/14 18:27, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 02:20:07PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
quoted
Shortly about the display components in the series, in the order of probable
public interest:
* Analog TV, DVI and HDMI Connectors represent a respective connector on the
board. They don't do much, but they do mark the end of the video pipeline (from
the board's pov), and they should also in the future offer ways to handle
things like the +5V pin on DVI and HDMI connector and HPD pin.
The big thing which concerns me is that we're using very generic
compatible strings here - has anyone done any searches to see whether
there are any existing standards for this kind of stuff already?
I did look for any display related DT bindings when I started the work
on OMAP DSS DT bindings. I didn't really find any. If I recall right,
the only thing I found was an example of basically:
fb@1234567 {
compatible="asd";
reg=<1234567>;
};
So just a node for "framebuffer", with the register addresses. And maybe
video timings in some form.
Maybe I didn't know where to look.
Even if none can be found, if we're going to create something like
this, it should probably become a public standard not just for Linux.
This is totally unclear to me. How does it become a public standard?
What's the forum for this?
If we're not willing to do that, I'd suggest prefixing the compatible
strings with "linux," as a "company" identifier so that there's no
chance that we may hit some major problem caused by a conflicting
implementation in the future.
I don't have an issue with "linux," either. We could always later remove
the prefix (but keep drivers compatible with it). So it sounds quite a
safe approach to me, if we're not quite clear if these bindings are
acceptable, or how to get "public approval" for them.
Tomi
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 06:48:35PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
This is totally unclear to me. How does it become a public standard?
What's the forum for this?
Me too. That's where I'd hope someone on devicetree-discuss will be
able to help us work out what's the right approach here. :)
--
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: now at 9.7Mbps down 460kbps up... slowly
improving, and getting towards what was expected from it.
Hi Rob, Pawel, Mark, Ian, Kumar,
On 28/02/14 18:56, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 06:48:35PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
quoted
This is totally unclear to me. How does it become a public standard?
What's the forum for this?
Me too. That's where I'd hope someone on devicetree-discuss will be
able to help us work out what's the right approach here. :)
The story briefly so far: I've implemented DT support for OMAP display,
and created bindings for various (non-OMAP) display components,
including generic connector bindings for DVI, HDMI and analog-tv.
Russell's point was that these connector bindings are very generic, i.e.
they are not for any particular chip from a particular vendor, but for
any connector for DVI, HDMI or analog-tv. And he's worried that maybe we
shouldn't define such generic bindings without consulting the whole
device-tree community (i.e including non-linux users).
So the question is, is there such a community and a forum to bring up
this kind of things? If yes, should we bring this up there? If yes, what
kind of things in general should be brought into the attention of
non-linux users?
What I wonder here is that while a thing like DVI connector is, of
course, more generic than, say, "ti,tfp410" encoder chip, but isn't the
case still the same: we're defining global bindings for hardware that
should work for everyone, not only Linux users?
Tomi
On 03/03/14 10:04, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
Hi Rob, Pawel, Mark, Ian, Kumar,
Ping,
Any hints on how to continue with this?
On 28/02/14 18:56, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
quoted
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 06:48:35PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
quoted
This is totally unclear to me. How does it become a public standard?
What's the forum for this?
Me too. That's where I'd hope someone on devicetree-discuss will be
able to help us work out what's the right approach here. :)
The story briefly so far: I've implemented DT support for OMAP display,
and created bindings for various (non-OMAP) display components,
including generic connector bindings for DVI, HDMI and analog-tv.
Russell's point was that these connector bindings are very generic, i.e.
they are not for any particular chip from a particular vendor, but for
any connector for DVI, HDMI or analog-tv. And he's worried that maybe we
shouldn't define such generic bindings without consulting the whole
device-tree community (i.e including non-linux users).
So the question is, is there such a community and a forum to bring up
this kind of things? If yes, should we bring this up there? If yes, what
kind of things in general should be brought into the attention of
non-linux users?
What I wonder here is that while a thing like DVI connector is, of
course, more generic than, say, "ti,tfp410" encoder chip, but isn't the
case still the same: we're defining global bindings for hardware that
should work for everyone, not only Linux users?
Tomi