Re: [PATCH 4/6] dt-bindings: display: armada: Add display subsystem binding

[Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>]

On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 4:37 PM Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@v3.sk> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2019-01-21 at 09:35 -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 11:26 AM Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@v3.sk> wrote:
> > > The Marvell Armada DRM master device is a virtual device needed to list all
> > > nodes that comprise the graphics subsystem.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@v3.sk>
> > > ---
> > >  .../display/armada/marvell-armada-drm.txt     | 24 +++++++++++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/armada/marvell-armada-drm.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/armada/marvell-armada-drm.txt
> > > index de4cca9432c8..3dbfa8047f0b 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/armada/marvell-armada-drm.txt
> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/armada/marvell-armada-drm.txt
> > > @@ -1,3 +1,27 @@
> > > +Marvell Armada DRM master device
> > > +================================
> > > +
> > > +The Marvell Armada DRM master device is a virtual device needed to list all
> > > +nodes that comprise the graphics subsystem.
> > > +
> > > +Required properties:
> > > +
> > > + - compatible: value should be "marvell,dove-display-subsystem",
> > > +   "marvell,armada-display-subsystem"
> > > + - ports: a list of phandles pointing to display interface ports of CRTC
> > > +   devices
> > > + - memory-region: phandle to a node describing memory to be used for the
> > > +   framebuffer
> > > +
> > > +Example:
> > > +
> > > +       display-subsystem {
> > > +               compatible = "marvell,dove-display-subsystem",
> > > +                            "marvell,armada-display-subsystem";
> > > +               memory-region = <&display_reserved>;
> > > +               ports = <&lcd0_port>;
> >
> > If there is only one device, you don't need this virtual node.
>
> Before I follow up on this and submit a version without the virtual
> node, I'm wondering: is it okay that the bindings for the LCDC and the
> framebuffer are in the same file, or would it be preferrable if they
> were separate? Both styles seem to be used for the display bindings.

framebuffer as in the kernel fbdev? Really, that should be the same
binding. It's the same h/w after all. However, there have been cases
where things deviated. So I don't have a good answer.

Rob