[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200106101042.5bb5b742@xps13>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2020 10:10:42 +0100
From: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
To: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
Paul Kocialkowski <paul.kocialkowski@...tlin.com>,
Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] drm/panel: simple: Support reset GPIOs
Hi Sam,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org> wrote on Thu, 2 Jan 2020 18:27:00 +0100:
> Hi Miquel
>
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 03:21:34PM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > The panel common bindings provide a gpios-reset property. Let's
> > support it in the simple driver.
> >
> > Two fields are added to the panel description structure: the time to
> > assert the reset and the time to wait right after before starting to
> > interact with it in any manner. In case these default values are not
> > filled but the GPIO is present in the DT, default values are applied.
>
> Wehn we discussed this the last time you wrote:
>
> """
> my hardware is:
>
> LVDS IP <----------> LVDS to RGB bridge <------------> Panel
>
> While there is a simple "RGB to LVDS" bridge driver, there is none
> doing the work the other way around. In my case, the bridge has a reset
> pin.
>
> As until now there is no way to represent the "LVDS to RGB" bridge and
> because the bindings already document such reset pin, I decided to add
> support for it in the simple panel driver.
> """
>
> Based on the information provided it seems that the correct way is to
> add a "LVDS to RGB bridge" and then let the bridge handle the reset
> functionality.
This I agree, but we are talking about my current situation.
>
> It is obviously much more code to do it this way but then
> other panels using the same type of brigde have the
> same functionality without adding bridge functionality to the panel.
This, I do not fully agree as bindings for the panel reset already
exist and we could have a reset on both: the bridge and the panel.
I choose to use a wrong (private) DT representation because I am not
willing to add an LVDS->RGB bridge: as you say, it is much more work to
do. But, IMHO, this is not related to the patch. If you consider this
patch wrong because a panel cannot have a reset, then it should be
stated clearly and maybe removed from the bindings?
Anyway if you think this change can't be useful, let's put it aside.
Thanks for your time,
Miquèl
Powered by blists - more mailing lists