Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] arm64: dts: allwinner: a64: enable ANX6345 bridge on Teres-I

[Maxime Ripard]

On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 04:58:35PM +0800, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
>
>
> ä 2019å7æ9æ GMT+08:00 äå4:55:32, Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@xxxxxxxxxxx> åå:
> >On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 05:49:21PM -0700, Vasily Khoruzhick wrote:
> >> > > Maybe instead of edp-connector one would introduce integrator's
> >specific
> >> > > connector, for example with compatible
> >"olimex,teres-edp-connector"
> >> > > which should follow edp abstract connector rules? This will be at
> >least
> >> > > consistent with below presentation[1] - eDP requirements depends
> >on
> >> > > integrator. Then if olimex has standard way of dealing with
> >panels
> >> > > present in olimex/teres platforms the driver would then create
> >> > > drm_panel/drm_connector/drm_bridge(?) according to these rules, I
> >guess.
> >> > > Anyway it still looks fishy for me :), maybe because I am not
> >> > > familiarized with details of these platforms.
> >> >
> >> > That makes sense yes
> >>
> >> Actually, it makes no sense at all. Current implementation for
> >anx6345
> >> driver works fine as is with any panel specified assuming panel
> >delays
> >> are long enough for connected panel. It just doesn't use panel
> >timings
> >> from the driver. Creating a platform driver for connector itself
> >looks
> >> redundant since it can't be reused, it doesn't describe actual
> >> hardware and it's just defeats purpose of DT by introducing
> >> board-specific code.
> >
> >I'm not sure where you got the idea that the purpose of DT is to not
> >have any board-specific code.
> >
> >It's perfectly fine to have some, that's even why there's a compatible
> >assigned to each and every board.
> >
> >What the DT is about is allowing us to have a generic behaviour that
> >we can detect: we can have a given behaviour for a given board, and a
> >separate one for another one, and this will be evaluated at runtime.
> >
> >This is *exactly* what this is about: we can have a compatible that
> >sets a given, more specific, behaviour (olimex,teres-edp-connector)
> >while saying that this is compatible with the generic behaviour
> >(edp-connector). That way, any OS will know what quirk to apply if
> >needed, and if not that it can use the generic behaviour.
> >
> >And we could create a generic driver, for the generic behaviour if
> >needed.
> >
> >> There's another issue: if we introduce edp-connector we'll have to
> >> specify power up delays somewhere (in dts? or in platform driver?),
> >so
> >> edp-connector doesn't really solve the issue of multiple panels with
> >> same motherboard.
> >
> >And that's what that compatible is about :)
>
> Maybe we can introduce a connector w/o any driver just like hdmi-connector?

Ironically, a driver for it has been sent yesterday :)

But yeah, we can definitely do that too.

Maxime

--
Maxime Ripard, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature