[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <TY1PR01MB17700DA7BEC8DA3AA32BEA53C0BE0@TY1PR01MB1770.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 10:01:01 +0000
From: Fabrizio Castro <fabrizio.castro@...renesas.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Laurent Pinchart <Laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
CC: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com>,
Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>,
Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham+renesas@...asonboard.com>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:MEDIA DRIVERS FOR RENESAS - FCP"
<linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
Chris Paterson <Chris.Paterson2@...esas.com>,
Biju Das <biju.das@...renesas.com>,
Jacopo Mondi <jacopo+renesas@...ndi.org>,
"xu_shunji@...erun.com" <xu_shunji@...erun.com>,
"ebiharaml@...linux.co.jp" <ebiharaml@...linux.co.jp>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 0/8] Add dual-LVDS panel support to EK874
Hi Rob,
Thank you for your feedback!
> From: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
> Sent: 29 August 2019 16:27
> To: Fabrizio Castro <fabrizio.castro@...renesas.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/8] Add dual-LVDS panel support to EK874
>
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 1:36 PM Fabrizio Castro
> <fabrizio.castro@...renesas.com> wrote:
> >
> > Dear All,
> >
> > this series adds support for dual-LVDS panel IDK-2121WR
> > from Advantech:
> > https://buy.advantech.eu/Displays/Embedded-LCD-Kits-High-Brightness/model-IDK-2121WR-K2FHA2E.htm
> >
> > V3 approaches the problem in a completely different way, we now
> > have two new properties to mark the ports in the DT as receiving
> > even pixels and odd pixels: dual-lvds-even-pixels and dual-lvds-odd-pixels,
> > which means device drivers should not use bridge specific or panel
> > specific dual_link flags. Also, in this case the DT describes the
> > connection fully.
> >
> > In order for the solution to be generic, I have exported a new helper
> > (drm_of_lvds_get_dual_link_configuration) to walk the device tree,
> > and figure out if the connection is dual-LVDS. The same helper gives
> > information about the configuration of the connection. If Px is connected
> > to a port expecting even pixels and Py is connected to a port expecting
> > odd pixels, then the helper returns DRM_LVDS_DUAL_LINK_EVEN_ODD_PIXELS
> > (like in the example below), otherwise it returns
> > DRM_LVDS_DUAL_LINK_ODD_EVEN_PIXELS.
> >
> >
> > -------- dual-lvds-even-pixels --------
> > | |---- ----| |
> > | | Px |---------------------->| Pn | |
> > | |---- ----| |
> > | SOURCE | dual-lvds-odd-pixels | SINK |
> > | |---- ----| |
> > | | Py |---------------------->| Pm | |
> > | |---- ----| |
> > -------- --------
> >
> > The device driver for the encoder then will work out if with the current
> > wiring the pixels need swapping or not.
> >
> > The same solution works for both panels and bridges.
> >
> > Since the DT describes the connection fully, driver
> > drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-lvds.c works out-of-the-box, no changes
> > required, however, this implementation opens up a problem with the
> > dt-bindings.
> > Driver drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-lvds.c can still be pleased by
> > a port node, but also by a ports node.
> > I have created Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bus-timings/lvds.yaml
> > with the idea of including it from panels and bridges dt-bindings
> > supporting dual-LVDS (and of course the dt-bindings for the specific
> > devices should say which port should be marked as what), but file
> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/lvds.yaml formally
> > requires property "port", while with this implementation it should require
> > OneOf "port" and "ports", and unfortunately I can't seem to find a neat way
> > aroud that, other than creating a new compatible string
>
> Just add 'ports' and drop 'port' from being required in the common
> binding. Then it is up to the panel specific bindings to define which
> one is required. Or we just leave it to allow either form which the
> graph code can handle.
>
> We could have this in the common binding:
>
> oneOf:
> - required: [ports]
> - required: [port]
Thank you for Rob for looking into this. I will wait for a feedback from Laurent
on the code before sending out v4.
Thanks,
Fab
>
> Rob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists