[PATCH v2 3/3] media: dt-bindings: vpif: new optional property

[Sekhar Nori]

On Tuesday 28 February 2017 07:56 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:36 PM, Sekhar Nori <nsekhar at ti.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday 28 February 2017 04:22 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 02:43:47PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>>> Add an optional property - enable-gpios - which can be used to specify
>>>> the GPIOs that must be requested to select the vpif functionality.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski at baylibre.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/ti,da850-vpif.txt | 7 +++++++
>>>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/ti,da850-vpif.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/ti,da850-vpif.txt
>>>> index df7182a..23c5405 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/ti,da850-vpif.txt
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/ti,da850-vpif.txt
>>>> @@ -13,6 +13,9 @@ Required properties:
>>>>  - reg: physical base address and length of the registers set for the device;
>>>>  - interrupts: should contain IRQ line for the VPIF
>>>>
>>>> +Optional properties:
>>>> +- enable-gpios: phandle of the GPIOs used to select the vpif functionality
>>>
>>> What does this control exactly? The GPIOs belong in the node they are
>>> connected to and having GPIOs routed to this block seems strange.
>>
>> The DA850 EVM board implements on-board muxing which lets the video
>> input (via VPIF) to be routed to a TVP5147 (video decoder) for composite
>> input or to a camera header. There are other mux options which use the
>> same VPIF SoC pins (RMII ethernet or character LCD).
>>
>> There is a three-to-eight demux on the board which drives enable signals
>> to buffers letting you choose from these options.
>>
>> From your response, it looks like you want the enable-gpios property to
>> be in the TVP5147 or camera node. That does make sense to me.
> 
> Well, seems like they should be part of a mux node. I'd suggest you
> look at the video-multiplexer binding under review[1].
> 
> Though for other non video functions, that would be some sort of board
> level pin mux control. There's a new mux binding too, maybe that would
> work. In any case, it shouldn't be the VPIF driver controlling the
> GPIOs directly.

Yeah, since there are non-video functions involved, we need a more
generic mux binding. I see the work Peter Rosin is doing[1]. Its not in
linux-next yet, but seems quite near merging.

[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/2/8/394

Thanks,
Sekhar