Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 4 Apr 2023 01:12:48 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] dt-bindings: display: bridge: sn65dsi83: Add DSI video mode | From | Marek Vasut <> |
| |
On 4/3/23 23:15, Francesco Dolcini wrote: > On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 04:06:22PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 12:17:51PM +0200, Francesco Dolcini wrote: >>> From: Francesco Dolcini <francesco.dolcini@toradex.com> >>> >>> SN65DSI8[34] device supports burst video mode and non-burst video mode >>> with sync events or with sync pulses packet transmission as described in >>> the DSI specification. >>> >>> Add property to select the expected mode, this allows for example to >>> select a mode that is compatible with the DSI host interface. >> >> Why does this need to be in DT? > >> The source and sink drivers should know what their capabilities are >> and pick the best common one. > > Is there a best mode?
I think yes: Burst (is better than) Sync Events (is better than) Sync Pulses
Burst is most energy efficient, Sync-Pulses is the simplest and least energy efficient and with most constraints.
> Isn't this a decision how do we want the 2 peers > to communicate?
I don't think so, I believe the Host and nearest bridge should be able to negotiate their capabilities (mode, link rate, etc.) within the DRM subsystem.
> For the MIPI-DSI Linux/DRM experts: am I missing something? Is there > another way to have a DSI video sink to ask for a specific mode?
I'm afraid this is not implemented yet, so ... plumbing needed.
[...]
| |