lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v8 2/2] drm: bridge: Add thc63lvd1024 LVDS decoder driver
Hi Vladimir,

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 02:18:30PM +0300, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
> Hi Jacopo,
>
> On 04/10/2018 01:53 PM, Jacopo Mondi wrote:
> > Add DRM bridge driver for Thine THC63LVD1024 LVDS to digital parallel
> > output converter.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jacopo Mondi <jacopo+renesas@jmondi.org>
> > Reviewed-by: Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@samsung.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund+renesas@ragnatech.se>
>
> Reviewed-by: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir_zapolskiy@mentor.com>
>

Thanks. FYI I sent v9 yesterday with a minimal change compared to v8.

> Generally I have only one pretty ignorable comment.
>
> > +
> > +enum thc63_ports {
> > + THC63_LVDS_IN0,
> > + THC63_LVDS_IN1,
> > + THC63_RGB_OUT0,
> > + THC63_RGB_OUT1,
> > +};
> > +
>
> The driver uses only THC63_RGB_OUT0 value, or port@2, and MODE{0,1,2} IC
> configuration is ignored.
>
> I don't know if right from the beginning it would be better to support
> dual-out modes, preferably both single-in and dual-in ones. Will it
> impact port enumeration?

The bindings have been designed to support dual in/out modes, as you
can see there are 4 possible ports described there:

Required video port nodes:
- port@0: First LVDS input port
- port@2: First digital CMOS/TTL parallel output

Optional video port nodes:
- port@1: Second LVDS input port
- port@3: Second digital CMOS/TTL parallel output

Future extension should not require changing the port enumeration,
just add a property to specify the selected mode.

>
> I do understand that the extension is possible, and likely only hardware
> accessibility postpones it.

Yes, hardware on one side, but also what I think is a shortcoming of
DRM (which exists in other sub-systems, say v4l2) that matches devices
on their OF device nodes and makes cumbersome handling drivers wanting
to register on 'port' nodes instead, as it would happen if you have 2
input endpoints.

See my [1] note here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/9/422
And this reply to Archit's comment which has been left floating as it
is not a real issue (yet): https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/10/214

Thanks
j

>
> --
> With best wishes,
> Vladimir
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-19 14:35    [W:0.087 / U:0.344 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site