Re: [PATCH 3/5] dt-bindings: display: simple-bridge: Document DPI color encoder

[Rob Herring]

On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 12:35:49PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 03:02:41PM +0800, Liu Ying wrote:
> > On 03/06/2025, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 10:35:26AM +0100, Alexander Stein wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> Am Dienstag, 4. März 2025, 16:23:20 CET schrieb Rob Herring:
> > >>> On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 06:15:28PM +0800, Liu Ying wrote:
> > >>>> A DPI color encoder, as a simple display bridge, converts input DPI color
> > >>>> coding to output DPI color coding, like Adafruit Kippah DPI hat[1] which
> > >>>> converts input 18-bit pixel data to 24-bit pixel data(with 2 low padding
> > >>>> bits in every color component though). Document the DPI color encoder.
> > >>>
> > >>> Why do we need a node for this? Isn't this just wired how it is wired 
> > >>> and there's nothing for s/w to see or do? I suppose if you are trying to 
> > >>> resolve the mode with 24-bit on one end and 18-bit on the other end, you 
> > >>> need to allow that and not require an exact match. You still might need 
> > >>> to figure out which pins the 18-bit data comes out on, but you have that 
> > >>> problem with an 18-bit panel too. IOW, how is this any different if you 
> > >>> have an 18-bit panel versus 24-bit panel?
> > >>
> > >> Especially panel-simple.c has a fixed configuration for each display, such as:
> > >>> .bus_format = MEDIA_BUS_FMT_RGB666_1X18
> > >>
> > >> How would you allow or even know it should be addressed as
> > >> MEDIA_BUS_FMT_RGB888_1X24 instead? I see different ways:
> > >> 1. Create a new display setting/compatible
> > >> 2. Add an overwrite property to the displays
> > >> 3. Use a (transparent) bridge (this series)
> > >>
> > >> Number 1 is IMHO out of question. 
> > > 
> > > Agreed.
> > > 
> > >> I personally don't like number 2 as this
> > >> feels like adding quirks to displays, which they don't have.
> > > 
> > > This is what I would do except apply it to the controller side. We know 
> > > the panel side already. This is a board variation, so a property makes 
> > > sense. I don't think you need any more than knowing what's on each end. 
> > 
> > With option 2, no matter putting a property in source side or sink side,
> > impacted display drivers and DT bindings need to be changed, once a board
> > manipulates the DPI color coding.  This adds burdens and introduces new
> > versions of those DT bindings.  Is this what we want?
> 
> There's an option 4: make it a property of the OF graph endpoints. In
> essence, it's similar to properties that are already there like
> lane-mapping, and it wouldn't affect the panel drivers, or create an
> intermediate bridge.

Yes, that's actually where I meant to put the property(ies).

Rob