[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 0/9] phy: Add configuration interface for MIPI D-PHY devices
Hi Kishon,

On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 03:33:31PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> On 21/01/19 9:15 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > Here is a set of patches to allow the phy framework consumers to test and
> > apply runtime configurations.
> >
> > This is needed to support more phy classes that require tuning based on
> > parameters depending on the current use case of the device, in addition to
> > the power state management already provided by the current functions.
> >
> > A first test bed for that API are the MIPI D-PHY devices. There's a number
> > of solutions that have been used so far to support these phy, most of the
> > time being an ad-hoc driver in the consumer.
> >
> > That approach has a big shortcoming though, which is that this is quite
> > difficult to deal with consumers integrated with multiple variants of phy,
> > of multiple consumers integrated with the same phy.
> >
> > The latter case can be found in the Cadence DSI bridge, and the CSI
> > transceiver and receivers. All of them are integrated with the same phy, or
> > can be integrated with different phy, depending on the implementation.
> >
> > I've looked at all the MIPI DSI drivers I could find, and gathered all the
> > parameters I could find. The interface should be complete, and most of the
> > drivers can be converted in the future. The current set converts two of
> > them: the above mentionned Cadence DSI driver so that the v4l2 drivers can
> > use them, and the Allwinner MIPI-DSI driver.
> Can the PHY changes go independently of the consumer drivers? or else I'll need

At least for the Allwinner driver, they can go through through the
drm-misc tree. Since we have a number of patches in flight for that
driver, it would even be easier to handle there.

For the cadence driver, since it doesn't really work on any system but
simulators for now, I guess the wakeup regression isn't super
important either.

So I'd say we can have the phy related patches go through your tree,
and the other through drm-misc.

Would that work for you?


Maxime Ripard, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-02-04 14:51    [W:0.107 / U:1.724 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site