[PATCH v4 2/7] dt-bindings: mediatek, dp: Add Display Port binding

[Rob Herring]

On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 9:19 AM Markus Schneider-Pargmann
<msp at baylibre.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 07:43:16PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 11:46:19AM +0200, Markus Schneider-Pargmann wrote:
> > > This controller is present on several mediatek hardware. Currently
> > > mt8195 and mt8395 have this controller without a functional difference,
> > > so only one compatible field is added.
> > >
> > > The controller can have two forms, as a normal display port and as an
> > > embedded display port.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Markus Schneider-Pargmann <msp at baylibre.com>
> > > ---
> > >  .../display/mediatek/mediatek,dp.yaml         | 89 +++++++++++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 89 insertions(+)
> > >  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/mediatek/mediatek,dp.yaml
> > >
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/mediatek/mediatek,dp.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/mediatek/mediatek,dp.yaml
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 000000000000..f7a35962c23b
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/mediatek/mediatek,dp.yaml
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
> > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
> > > +%YAML 1.2
> > > +---
> > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/display/mediatek/mediatek,dp.yaml#
> > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> > > +
> > > +title: Mediatek Display Port Controller
> > > +
> > > +maintainers:
> > > +  - CK Hu <ck.hu at mediatek.com>
> > > +  - Jitao shi <jitao.shi at mediatek.com>
> > > +
> > > +description: |
> > > +  Device tree bindings for the Mediatek (embedded) Display Port controller
> > > +  present on some Mediatek SoCs.
> > > +
> > > +properties:
> > > +  compatible:
> > > +    enum:
> > > +      - mediatek,mt8195-edp_tx
> > > +      - mediatek,mt8195-dp_tx
> >
> > Are these blocks different?
>
> Good point, the registers of these blocks are described in its own
> chapter each. Also I do need to distinguish between both in the driver.
> Would you suggest making this distinction differently or keep it as two
> compatibles?

If the registers are all the same, then it should be the same
compatible. If you still need to distinguish, then you should have a
panel or connector node that will let you do that.

Also, s/_/-/ in the compatible string.

Rob