Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] ARM: dts: Move display-timimg information inside FIMD DT node for exynos5250

Hi All,

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Tomasz Figa t.figa@samsung.com 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?

Any more comments on this series.

Best regards, Tomasz

-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html