[PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: display: bridge: tc358867: Document DPI output support

[Marek Vasut]

On 12/7/21 18:03, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 05:47:29PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> On 12/7/21 17:43, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/toshiba,tc358767.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/toshiba,tc358767.yaml
>>>> index f1541cc05297..5cfda6f2ba69 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/toshiba,tc358767.yaml
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/toshiba,tc358767.yaml
>>>> @@ -61,8 +61,8 @@ properties:
>>>>          port at 1:
>>>>            $ref: /schemas/graph.yaml#/properties/port
>>>>            description: |
>>>> -            DPI input port. The remote endpoint phandle should be a
>>>> -            reference to a valid DPI output endpoint node
>>>> +            DPI input/output port. The remote endpoint phandle should be a
>>>> +            reference to a valid DPI output or input endpoint node.
>>>
>>> I assume the mode of operation (input or output) will be fixed for a
>>> given hardware design. Isn't this something that should be recorded in
>>> DT ? It would simplify configuration of the device in the driver.
>>
>> Currently the configuration (DSI-to-DPI / DPI-to-eDP) is inferred from
>> the presence of DPI panel. If DPI panel present, DSI-to-DPI, else,
>> DPI-to-eDP.
> 
> I've had a look at the driver side, and it seems to complicate things
> quite a bit. It seems that specifying the mode of operation explicitly
> in DT could make software implementations quite a bit simpler.

Do you have any specific suggestion ? I explored multiple options while 
writing that DSI-to-DPI driver code, this one was the simplest and least 
redundant one.