Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] dt-bindings: display: bridge: Document THC63LVD1024 LVDS decoder

[Laurent Pinchart]

Hi Jacopo,

On Wednesday, 14 March 2018 11:06:51 EET jacopo mondi wrote:
> Hi Andrzej,
>     sorry for the mess :(
> 
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 09:15:42AM +0100, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> > On 13.03.2018 15:30, Jacopo Mondi wrote:
> > > Document Thine THC63LVD1024 LVDS decoder device tree bindings.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Jacopo Mondi <jacopo+renesas@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > 
> > >  .../bindings/display/bridge/thine,thc63lvd1024.txt | 63 +++++++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 63 insertions(+)
> > >  create mode 100644
> > >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/thine,thc63lvd1024.tx
> > >  t
> > > diff --git
> > > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/thine,thc63lvd1024.t
> > > xt
> > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/thine,thc63lvd1024.t
> > > xt new file mode 100644
> > > index 0000000..5b5afcd
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++
> > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/thine,thc63lvd1024.t
> > > xt @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
> > > +Thine Electronics THC63LVD1024 LVDS decoder
> > > +-------------------------------------------
> > > +
> > > +The THC63LVD1024 is a dual link LVDS receiver designed to convert LVDS
> > > streams +to parallel data outputs. The chip supports single/dual
> > > input/output modes, +handling up to two two input LVDS stream and up to
> > > two digital CMOS/TTL outputs. +
> > > +Required properties:
> > > +- compatible: Shall be "thine,thc63lvd1024",
> > > +
> > > +Optional properties:
> > > +- vcc-supply: Power supply for TTL output and digital circuitry
> > > +- cvcc-supply: Power supply for TTL CLOCKOUT signal
> > > +- lvcc-supply: Power supply for LVDS inputs
> > > +- pvcc-supply: Power supply for PLL circuitry
> > 
> > I wonder if it wouldn't be better to make them required (at least VCC) -
> > it is closer to reality.
> 
> In cases like our Eagle board, where VCC is directly connected to the
> powering rail and not through a controllable regulator, I feel like
> making this mandatory requires more effort (not much, I agree, just a
> "fixed-regulator" more) with no additional benefits.
> 
> But I understand your point, and I'm open to whatever fits better with
> the already existing DRM bridges bindings

I still haven't made up my mind on this topic. I like making the VCC power 
supply mandatory as it is mandatory, but you're right that it creates 
additional complexity in DT without much added benefit (although it might 
simplify the driver as bit). In that case I'd make the other supplies 
mandatory too. I'm tempted to specify a single power supply in DT though, as 
I'd be quite surprised to see a system with individually controllable supplies 
for the different power rails (they all use the same voltage), but surprises 
happen. We've had similar cases in other bindings before (I'm afraid I can't 
recall which) where Rob was fine having a single supply. Maybe we could apply 
the same logic with a single vcc supply, and add the other supplies later as 
optional properties if we ever need to specify them separately ?

> > > +- pwnd-gpios: Power down GPIO signal. Active low.
> > 
> > As I said before, specs[1] says about "/PDWN" pin. Is it your typo, or
> > different docs?
> 
> I didn't notice the typo in first review, and I thought you were referring
> to the initial '/' which I found weird to be part of the gpio name... Then
> I now realized I badly typed in "pwnd" in place of "pwdn", which is not
> even correct because it has to be "pdwn"... Sorry about this mess, I will
> fix in v4
> 
> > Moreover there are already bindings for THC63LVDM83D with the same
> > dichotomy [2].
> 
> Seems like this is 'wrong' as well.. The chip manual says the pin is
> named "pdwn" here too..
> 
> > Out of curiosity I have googled for "pwnd pin" and it looks like some
> > vendors use this form.
> > For me both forms are quite misleading: power down signal, active low,
> > why they couldn't call it just 'enable, active high'.
> 
> It's not much the actual physical active level that bugs me, but the fact
> that the GPIO name defines if it has to be set to "active" or
> "inactive" logical state in enable/disable routines that I don't
> like..
> 
> > [1]: http://www.thine.co.jp/files/topics/179_ext_12_0.pdf
> > [2]: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v4.16-rc5/source/Documentation/
> > devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/thine,thc63lvdm83d.txt> 
> > > +- oe-gpios: Output enable GPIO signal. Active high.
> > > +
> > > +The THC63LVD1024 video port connections are modeled according
> > > +to OF graph bindings specified by
> > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/graph.txt
> > > +
> > > +Required video port nodes:
> > > +- Port@0: First LVDS input port
> > > +- Port@2: First digital CMOS/TTL parallel output
> > > +
> > > +Optional video port nodes:
> > > +- Port@1: Second LVDS input port
> > > +- Port@3: Second digital CMOS/TTL parallel output
> > > +
> > > +Example:
> > > +--------
> > > +
> > > +	thc63lvd1024: lvds-decoder {
> > > +		compatible = "thine,thc63lvd1024";
> > > +
> > > +		vcc-supply = <&reg_lvds_vcc>;
> > > +		lvcc-supply = <&reg_lvds_lvcc>;
> > > +
> > > +		pwdn-gpio = <&gpio4 15 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
> > 
> > And here another variation :), should be pdwn-gpios.
> 
> Next time it will be "pndw".. Is there a prize if I do insert all
> permutations of the same name in a single bindings document? :)
> 
> Will fix this shortly.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart