Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 19 Apr 2018 14:33:55 +0200 | From | jacopo mondi <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v8 2/2] drm: bridge: Add thc63lvd1024 LVDS decoder driver |
| |
Hi Vladimir,
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 02:18:30PM +0300, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: > Hi Jacopo, > > On 04/10/2018 01:53 PM, Jacopo Mondi wrote: > > Add DRM bridge driver for Thine THC63LVD1024 LVDS to digital parallel > > output converter. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jacopo Mondi <jacopo+renesas@jmondi.org> > > Reviewed-by: Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@samsung.com> > > Reviewed-by: Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund+renesas@ragnatech.se> > > Reviewed-by: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir_zapolskiy@mentor.com> >
Thanks. FYI I sent v9 yesterday with a minimal change compared to v8.
> Generally I have only one pretty ignorable comment. > > > + > > +enum thc63_ports { > > + THC63_LVDS_IN0, > > + THC63_LVDS_IN1, > > + THC63_RGB_OUT0, > > + THC63_RGB_OUT1, > > +}; > > + > > The driver uses only THC63_RGB_OUT0 value, or port@2, and MODE{0,1,2} IC > configuration is ignored. > > I don't know if right from the beginning it would be better to support > dual-out modes, preferably both single-in and dual-in ones. Will it > impact port enumeration?
The bindings have been designed to support dual in/out modes, as you can see there are 4 possible ports described there:
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
Future extension should not require changing the port enumeration, just add a property to specify the selected mode.
> > I do understand that the extension is possible, and likely only hardware > accessibility postpones it.
Yes, hardware on one side, but also what I think is a shortcoming of DRM (which exists in other sub-systems, say v4l2) that matches devices on their OF device nodes and makes cumbersome handling drivers wanting to register on 'port' nodes instead, as it would happen if you have 2 input endpoints.
See my [1] note here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/9/422 And this reply to Archit's comment which has been left floating as it is not a real issue (yet): https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/10/214
Thanks j
> > -- > With best wishes, > Vladimir [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |