[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200804120946.GQ12965@vkoul-mobl>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2020 17:39:46 +0530
From: Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
To: Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>
Cc: Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...il.com>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
martin.botka1@...il.com, Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>,
Jordan Crouse <jcrouse@...eaurora.org>,
zhengbin <zhengbin13@...wei.com>,
Jeffrey Hugo <jeffrey.l.hugo@...il.com>,
AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <kholk11@...il.com>,
Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk>,
Krzysztof Wilczynski <kw@...ux.com>,
Harigovindan P <harigovi@...eaurora.org>,
Brian Masney <masneyb@...tation.org>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
Xiaozhe Shi <xiaozhes@...eaurora.org>,
Manu Gautam <mgautam@...eaurora.org>,
linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
freedreno <freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux USB List <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-clk <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] drm/msm/dsi: Add phy configuration for SDM630/636/660
On 03-08-20, 09:06, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 4:00 AM Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 26-07-20, 13:12, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> > > These SoCs make use of the 14nm phy, but at different
> > > addresses than other 14nm units.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...il.com>
> > > ---
> > > .../devicetree/bindings/display/msm/dsi.txt | 1 +
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/phy/dsi_phy.c | 2 ++
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/phy/dsi_phy.h | 1 +
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/phy/dsi_phy_14nm.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > Is there a reason why dsi phy needs to be here and not in phy subsystem
> > drivers/phy/ ?
>
> *maybe* it would be possible to split out all of the dsi (and hdmi)
> phy to drivers/phy. But splitting out just the new ones wouldn't be
> practical (it would duplicate a lot of code, and make the rest of the
> dsi code have to deal with both cases). And unlike dp/usb-c I'm not
> really sure I see an advantage to justify the churn.
So the question would be if it helps in reuse if we do that and does it
result in a better solution than dsi code managing the phy. The
advantage of framework (like phy) is that different subsystems can use
a (phy) driver and common framework helps reduce duplicates.
Yes sure the question was not for a new phy but about the whole
msm/dsi/phy code and future for it.
--
~Vinod
Powered by blists - more mailing lists