On Wednesday 14 of August 2013 14:56:55 Kukjin Kim wrote:
Tomasz Figa wrote:
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 vikas.sajjan@linaro.org
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?
The name of node looks good to me and the name had been being used for a long time
Like a lot of things used in device trees of ARM platforms, since we did not have any proper processes defined for creating device tree bindings and device trees themselves, including any recommended set of good practices.
We are now trying to define all of this and so it's time to rethink all the DT related things that has been added for ARM platforms since the time DT for ARM was introduced and make sure that everything is reasonable.
, and if we change that now, that will cause the bigger confusion.
Still, I think this patch can go as is and node naming can be fixed in separate patches, including any other quirks of Exynos device trees.
So, for the whole series:
Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa t.figa@samsung.com
Best regards, Tomasz