Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

dts: remove zephyr,panel-timing compat #79529

Conversation

decsny
Copy link
Member

@decsny decsny commented Oct 8, 2024

Since the panel timing node comes from linux bindings, let's try to remove the zephyr-specific compatible by using a child binding. This would potentially require some other work if another type of child node is needed to be specified in the future.

This compatible was mentioned in #74415 as a supporting example for more zephyr-specific compatibles, hence the motivation of this PR.

Since the panel timing node comes from linux bindings, let's try to
remove the zephyr-specific compatible by using a child binding. This
would potentially require some other work if another type of child node
is needed to be specified in the future.

Signed-off-by: Declan Snyder <declan.snyder@nxp.com>
};

compatible: "zephyr,panel-timing"
# Common timing settings for display panels. These timings can be added to
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can child bindings not have a description? Not sure why this needs to be commented out.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

they can, but no documentation would get generated for it AFAIK, so I don't see the point, but it doesn't hurt anything, I guess, so I can put it back if you care enough. But do you know what would be the point?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I guess there is no strong reason to do it either way. The only reason I can think of to use the description property would be if we did start generating the documentation in the future. It also follows the pattern we use for other child bindings, where we do add a description property

@decsny
Copy link
Member Author

decsny commented Oct 8, 2024

I actually think I don't want this PR to be merged right now, I'd rather just rework the DT tooling and expand the zephyr binding yaml schema since this is a common problem, but I'll leave this draft open as a reminder

@decsny
Copy link
Member Author

decsny commented Oct 12, 2024

closed in favor of something like #79751

@decsny decsny closed this Oct 12, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants