[RESEND PATCH v3 06/11] drm: add DT bindings documentation for atmel-hlcdc-dc driver

[Laurent Pinchart]

Hi Boris,

On Wednesday 16 July 2014 15:05:22 Boris BREZILLON wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 13:07:58 +0200 Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Tuesday 15 July 2014 12:52:54 Thierry Reding wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:43:02PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday 15 July 2014 12:37:19 Thierry Reding wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:20:02PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday 15 July 2014 12:06:19 Boris BREZILLON wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 12:05:43 +0200 Thierry Reding wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 06:42:59PM +0200, Boris BREZILLON wrote:
> >>>>>>>> The Atmel HLCDC (HLCD Controller) IP available on some Atmel SoCs
> >>>>>>>> (i.e. at91sam9n12, at91sam9x5 family or sama5d3 family) provides
> >>>>>>>> a display controller device.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> The HLCDC block provides a single RGB output port, and only
> >>>>>>>> supports LCD panels connection to LCD panels for now.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> The atmel,panel property link the HLCDC RGB output with the LCD
> >>>>>>>> panel connected on this port (note that the HLCDC RGB connector
> >>>>>>>> implementation makes use of the DRM panel framework).
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> Connection to other external devices (DRM bridges) might be added
> >>>>>>>> later by mean of a new atmel,xxx (atmel,bridge) property.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Boris BREZILLON
> >>>>>>>> <boris.brezillon at free-electrons.com>
> >>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>  .../devicetree/bindings/drm/atmel-hlcdc-dc.txt     | 59 ++++++++
> >>>>>>>>  1 file changed, 59 insertions(+)
> >>>>>>>>  create mode 100644
> >>>>>>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/drm/atmel-hlcdc-dc.txt
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> [snip]
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> + - atmel,panel: Should contain a phandle with 2 parameters.
> >>>>>>>> +   The first cell is a phandle to a DRM panel device
> >>>>>>>> +   The second cell encodes the RGB mode, which can take the
> >>>>>>>> following values:
> >>>>>>>> +   * 0: RGB444
> >>>>>>>> +   * 1: RGB565
> >>>>>>>> +   * 2: RGB666
> >>>>>>>> +   * 3: RGB888
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> These are properties of the panel and should be obtained from the
> >>>>>>> panel directly rather than an additional cell in this specifier.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Okay.
> >>>>>> What's the preferred way of doing this ?
> >>>>>> What about defining an rgb-mode property in the panel node.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> You could do that, but it won't help you much, as the HLCDC driver
> >>>>> must not parse properties from the panel node. You should instead
> >>>>> extend the drm_panel API with a function to retrieve panel
> >>>>> properties. The HLCDC driver will then query the panel driver at
> >>>>> runtime for the interface type. The panel driver will get the
> >>>>> information from hardcoded data in the driver, from DT or possibly
> >>>>> in some cases by querying the panel hardware directly.
> >>>> 
> >>>> My preference for this would be that we either add this to some
> >>>> existing structure (struct drm_display_info seems like a good
> >>>> candidate) or if the number of parameters grows out of hands, then
> >>>> maybe even introduce a new type of device that's specific for the
> >>>> interface. DRM panels are an abstraction for panels, that is,
> >>>> interface-agnostic, and if we start exposing interface specific
> >>>> parameters things will start to become very unwieldy.
> >>> 
> >>> I agree with the goal of keeping drm_panel interface-agnostic.
> >>> However, one way or another, interface parameters will need to be
> >>> communicated between the panel driver and the controller driver. My
> >>> preference, if we need to extend the number and/or scope of parameters
> >>> beyond what drm_display_info could reasonably contain, would be to
> >>> implement a new drm_panel operation to query/configure interface
> >>> parameters, using a structure that contains the interface type and a
> >>> union of type-specific structures. This would keep the API generic in
> >>> the sense of not requiring explicit knowledge of all interfaces in the
> >>> drivers, while offering the flexibility we need with a way to easily
> >>> detect the interface type at runtime and react on unknown/unsupported
> >>> types.
> >> 
> >> That's exactly what I was hoping could be avoided. If instead we modeled
> >> the interface type as a bus, we could for example have an lvds_bus along
> >> with an lvds_device and then use that as the natural place to store
> >> these properties. Much like we do for DSI.
> > 
> > And I believe that's what we should avoid ;-) First of all, let's not
> > forget that Linux models control busses, not data busses. DSI is a
> > special case as it combines the control and data busses, but in the
> > general case the same implementation isn't possible. An LVDS panel
> > controlled through I2C needs to be an I2C device sitting on an I2C bus.
> > 
> > Then, I believe it would make all drivers simpler if we had a single
> > object type to deal with, with proper abstractions for bus types. A
> > drm_panel that can model panels regardless of the data bus type, with one
> > operation that conveys bus-specific information, makes storing the objects
> > and communicating with them simpler than having to deal with different
> > kind of devices.
>
> Could you detail a bit what you mean by "single object type" ?
> 
> Is this about making a common abstraction class (by mean of
> drm_xxx and drm_xxx_funcs) that could represent any display device
> (drm_bridge, drm_panel, ...) ?

Exactly :-) This is similar to what exists in V4L, with a v4l2_subdev object 
able to model any kind of IP core or external chip.

I don't think we will get there in one go, but I'd like to start by merging 
drm_encoder and drm_bridge on the kernel side. Both objects model the same 
hardware, a drm_encoder on one board could be a drm_bridge on another one. 
>From a userspace point of view drm_encoder won't go away, and we can't chain 
multiple encoders, so the change would be internal to the kernel only.

Then, as a next step, I believe using the same object to model panels would be 
a good idea, but there's no consensus on that.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart