[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <552F4B2E.2000209@codeaurora.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 11:09:58 +0530
From: Archit Taneja <architt@...eaurora.org>
To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Liu Ying <Ying.Liu@...escale.com>
CC: stefan.wahren@...e.com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux@....linux.org.uk, sboyd@...eaurora.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
a.hajda@...sung.com, kernel@...gutronix.de,
andy.yan@...k-chips.com, mturquette@...aro.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v9 11/20] drm/bridge: Add Synopsys DesignWare MIPI
DSI host controller driver
On 04/09/2015 02:13 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 02:01:34PM +0800, Liu Ying wrote:
> [...]
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/dw_mipi_dsi.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/dw_mipi_dsi.c
> [...]
>> +struct dw_mipi_dsi {
>> + struct mipi_dsi_host dsi_host;
>> + struct drm_connector connector;
>> + struct drm_encoder *encoder;
>> + struct drm_bridge *bridge;
>> + struct drm_panel *panel;
>> + struct device *dev;
>> +
>> + void __iomem *base;
>> +
>> + struct clk *pllref_clk;
>> + struct clk *cfg_clk;
>> + struct clk *pclk;
>> +
>> + unsigned int lane_mbps; /* per lane */
>> + u32 channel;
>> + u32 lanes;
>> + u32 format;
>> + struct drm_display_mode *mode;
>> +
>> + const struct dw_mipi_dsi_plat_data *pdata;
>> +
>> + bool enabled;
>> +};
>
> While reviewing this I kept thinking whether this is really the right
> architectural design. This driver is a MIPI DSI host, a connector and
> a bridge, all in one. But it seems to me like it should really be an
> encoder/connector and a MIPI DSI host. Why the need for a bridge? The
> bridge abstraction targets blocks outside of the SoC, but it is my
> understanding that these DesignWare IP blocks are designed into SoCs.
>
The msm driver uses bridges for blocks within the SoC too. We have too
many sub blocks in the display controller that use up crtcs and encoder
entities. A bridge is the only option one has if an encoder in the
display chain is already taken.
In the above designware configuration, if some one created a board that
used an external chip to further convert DSI to some other output
format, then we would be completely exhausted of all entities.
I posted a patch that allows us to create a chain of bridges for such
cases. It seems to work well as an interim solution. Ideally, it would
be better if we could make bridge a special case of an encoder, and let
one encoder connect to another encoder.
Such a thing would also help us unify i2c slave encoders and bridge
drivers too. A chip designed as an i2c slave encoder would work well
with a drm driver that doesn't have an encoder, but won't work for SoCs
SoCs that already have an encoder and were expecting a bridge entity
instead.
Archit
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists