[PATCH V7 11/12] Documentation: bridge: Add documentation for ps8622 DT properties

[Ajay kumar]

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Thierry Reding
<thierry.reding at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 05:49:24PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>> Hi Ajay,
>>
>> On Tuesday 07 October 2014 16:06:55 Ajay kumar wrote:
>> > On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>> > > On 20/09/14 14:22, Ajay kumar wrote:
>> > >> Well, I am okay with using video ports to describe the relationship
>> > >> between the encoder, bridge and the panel.
>> > >> But, its just that I need to make use of 2 functions when phandle
>> > >> does it using just one function ;)
>> > >> -        panel_node = of_parse_phandle(dev->of_node, "panel", 0)
>> > >> +       endpoint = of_graph_get_next_endpoint(dev->of_node, NULL);
>> > >> +       if (!endpoint)
>> > >> +               return -EPROBE_DEFER;
>> > >> +
>> > >> +       panel_node = of_graph_get_remote_port_parent(endpoint);
>> > >> +       if (!panel_node)
>> > >> +               return -EPROBE_DEFER;
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> If nobody else has objections over using of_graph functions instead
>> > >> of phandles, I can respin this patchset by making use of video ports.
>> > >
>> > > The discussion did digress somewhat.
>> > >
>> > > As a clarification, I'm in no way nack'ing this series because it
>> > > doesn't use the graphs for video connections. I don't see the simple
>> > > phandle bindings used here as broken as such.
>> >
>> > Well, I am okay with any approach you guys decide on. I desperately want
>> > this to get this in since it has been floating around for quite sometime.
>> > The more we drag this, the more rework for me since the number of platforms
>> > using bridge support is increasing daily!
>>
>> I won't nack this patch either. I'm however concerned that we'll run straight
>> into the wall if we don't come up with an agreement on a standard way to
>> describe connections in DT for display devices, which is why I would prefer
>> the ps8622 bindings to use OF graph to describe connections.
>
> I think there's not really an easy way out here. It's pretty bold trying
> to come up with a common way to describe bridges when we have only a
> single one (and a single use-case at that). The worst that can happen is
> that we need to change the binding at some point, in which case we may
> have to special-case early drivers, but I really don't think that's as
> much of an issue as everybody seems to think.
>
> This series has been floating around for months because we're being
> overly prudent to accept a binding that /may/ turn out to not be generic
> enough.
Right. It would be great if you guys come to agreement ASAP!

Ajay