From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tomasz Figa Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] ARM: dts: Move display-timimg information inside FIMD DT node for exynos5250 Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 16:49:46 +0200 Message-ID: <171932162.BeOHtLbZec@amdc1227> References: <1375183178-8201-1-git-send-email-vikas.sajjan@linaro.org> <1375183178-8201-2-git-send-email-vikas.sajjan@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: Received: from mailout4.w1.samsung.com ([210.118.77.14]:23177 "EHLO mailout4.w1.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755605Ab3HAOt4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Aug 2013 10:49:56 -0400 In-reply-to: <1375183178-8201-2-git-send-email-vikas.sajjan@linaro.org> Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org To: Vikas Sajjan Cc: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, kgene.kim@samsung.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, jg1.han@samsung.com, inki.dae@samsung.com, ajaynumb@gmail.com, patches@linaro.org, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, grant.likely@secretlab.ca, swarren@wwwdotorg.org, mark.rutland@arm.com Hi Vikas, On Tuesday 30 of July 2013 16:49:32 Vikas Sajjan wrote: > As the display-timing information is parsed by FIMD driver, it makes > sense to move the display-timimg DT node inside FIMD DT node for > exynos5250 > > Signed-off-by: Vikas Sajjan > --- > arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-smdk5250.dts | 29 > ++++++++++++++++------------- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 13 > deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-smdk5250.dts > b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-smdk5250.dts index 49f18c2..d176dbb > 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-smdk5250.dts > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-smdk5250.dts > @@ -262,19 +262,22 @@ > pinctrl-0 = <&dp_hpd>; > }; > > - display-timings { > - native-mode = <&timing0>; > - timing0: timing@0 { > - /* 1280x800 */ > - clock-frequency = <50000>; > - hactive = <1280>; > - vactive = <800>; > - hfront-porch = <4>; > - hback-porch = <4>; > - hsync-len = <4>; > - vback-porch = <4>; > - vfront-porch = <4>; > - vsync-len = <4>; > + fimd@14400000 { > + status = "okay"; > + display-timings { > + native-mode = <&timing0>; > + timing0: timing@0 { > + /* 1280x800 */ > + clock-frequency = <50000>; > + hactive = <1280>; > + vactive = <800>; > + hfront-porch = <4>; > + hback-porch = <4>; > + hsync-len = <4>; > + vback-porch = <4>; > + vfront-porch = <4>; > + vsync-len = <4>; > + }; > }; > }; Looks good to me, but I would like some other people from the device tree mailing list to comment on node naming: Do we want to conform to the recommendation of ePAPR about node naming, which states that node names should be generic, not platform specific or we are free to ignore it? Best regards, Tomasz