Re: [PATCH v3 06/14] Documentation: drm/bridge: add document for analogix_dp
From: Thierry Reding
Date: Tue Aug 25 2015 - 05:14:28 EST
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 09:48:27AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 7:57 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 06:23:14PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Yakir Yang <ykk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > + -analogix,color-depth:
> >> > + number of bits per colour component.
> >> > + COLOR_6 = 0, COLOR_8 = 1, COLOR_10 = 2, COLOR_12 = 3
> >> This seems pretty generic. Just use 6, 8, 10, or 12 for values. And
> >> drop the vendor prefix.
> > Please think about this some more. What does "color-depth" mean? Does it
> > mean the number of bits per colour _component_, or does it mean the total
> > number of bits to represent a particular colour. It's confusing as it
> > stands.
> Then "component-color-bpp" perhaps?
There should be no need to have this in DT at all. The BPC is a property
of the attached panel and it should come from the panel (either the
panel driver or parsed from EDID if available).
> > When we adopted the graph bindings for iMX DRM, I thought exactly at that
> > time "it would be nice if this could become the standard for binding DRM
> > components together" but I don't have the authority from either the DT
> > perspective or the DRM perspective to mandate that. Neither does anyone
> > else. That's the _real_ problem here.
> > I've seen several DRM bindings go by which don't use the of-graph stuff,
> > which means that they'll never be compatible with generic components
> > which do use the of-graph stuff.
> It goes beyond bindings IMO. The use of the component framework or not
> has been at the whim of driver writers as well. It is either used or
> private APIs are created. I'm using components and my need for it
> boils down to passing the struct drm_device pointer to the encoder.
> Other components like panels and bridges have different ways to attach
> to the DRM driver.
I certainly support unification, but it needs to be reasonable. There
are cases where a different structure for the binding work better than
another and I think this always needs to be evaluated on a case by case
Because of that I think it makes sense to make all these framework bits
opt-in, otherwise we could easily end up in a situation where drivers
have to be rearchitected (or even DT bindings altered!) in order to be
able to reuse code.
Description: PGP signature