Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 24 Jan 2023 15:47:42 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm: lcdif: Add i.MX93 LCDIF support | From | Marek Vasut <> |
| |
On 1/24/23 12:15, Alexander Stein wrote: > Hi,
Hi,
> Am Dienstag, 24. Januar 2023, 08:59:39 CET schrieb Liu Ying: >> On Mon, 2023-01-23 at 16:57 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: >>> On 1/23/23 08:23, Liu Ying wrote: >>>> The LCDIF embedded in i.MX93 SoC is essentially the same to those >>>> in i.MX8mp SoC. However, i.MX93 LCDIF may connect with MIPI DSI >>>> controller through LCDIF cross line pattern(controlled by mediamix >>>> blk-ctrl) or connect with LVDS display bridge(LDB) directly or a >>>> parallel display(also through mediamix blk-ctrl), so add multiple >>>> encoders(with DRM_MODE_ENCODER_NONE encoder type) support in the >>>> LCDIF DRM driver and find a bridge to attach the relevant encoder's >>>> chain when needed. While at it, derive lcdif_crtc_state structure >>>> from drm_crtc_state structure to introduce bus_format and bus_flags >>>> states so that the next downstream bridges may use consistent bus >>>> format and bus flags. >>> >>> Would it be possible to split this patch into preparatory clean up >>> and >>> i.MX93 addition ? It seems like the patch is doing two things >>> according >>> to the commit message. >> >> IMHO, all the patch does is for i.MX93 addition, not for clean up. >> Note that the single LCDIF embedded in i.MX93 SoC may connect with MIPI >> DSI/LVDS/parallel related bridges to drive triple displays >> _simultaneously_ in theory, while the three LCDIF instances embedded in >> i.MX8mp SoC connect with MIPI DSI/LVDS/HDMI displays respectively(one >> LCDIF maps to one display). The multiple encoders addition and the new >> checks for consistent bus format and bus flags are only for i.MX93 >> LCDIF, not for i.MX8mp LCDIF. Also, I think the multiple encoders >> addition and the new checks should be done together - if the new checks >> come first, then the new checks do not make sense(no multiple displays >> driven by LCDIF); > > You are right on this one, but on the other hand there are lot of preparing > patches already. Even if it is useless by itself, having the bus format & flag > checks in a separate patch, it is easier to review, IMHO.
I agree on the ease of review.
[...]
| |