Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 6 Jan 2020 10:10:42 +0100 | From | Miquel Raynal <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] drm/panel: simple: Support reset GPIOs |
| |
Hi Sam,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org> wrote on Thu, 2 Jan 2020 18:27:00 +0100:
> Hi Miquel > > On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 03:21:34PM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote: > > The panel common bindings provide a gpios-reset property. Let's > > support it in the simple driver. > > > > Two fields are added to the panel description structure: the time to > > assert the reset and the time to wait right after before starting to > > interact with it in any manner. In case these default values are not > > filled but the GPIO is present in the DT, default values are applied. > > Wehn we discussed this the last time you wrote: > > """ > my hardware is: > > LVDS IP <----------> LVDS to RGB bridge <------------> Panel > > While there is a simple "RGB to LVDS" bridge driver, there is none > doing the work the other way around. In my case, the bridge has a reset > pin. > > As until now there is no way to represent the "LVDS to RGB" bridge and > because the bindings already document such reset pin, I decided to add > support for it in the simple panel driver. > """ > > Based on the information provided it seems that the correct way is to > add a "LVDS to RGB bridge" and then let the bridge handle the reset > functionality.
This I agree, but we are talking about my current situation.
> > It is obviously much more code to do it this way but then > other panels using the same type of brigde have the > same functionality without adding bridge functionality to the panel.
This, I do not fully agree as bindings for the panel reset already exist and we could have a reset on both: the bridge and the panel. I choose to use a wrong (private) DT representation because I am not willing to add an LVDS->RGB bridge: as you say, it is much more work to do. But, IMHO, this is not related to the patch. If you consider this patch wrong because a panel cannot have a reset, then it should be stated clearly and maybe removed from the bindings?
Anyway if you think this change can't be useful, let's put it aside.
Thanks for your time, Miquèl
| |