[PATCH v3 06/14] Documentation: drm/bridge: add document for analogix_dp
k.kozlowski at samsung.com
Mon Aug 24 16:49:36 PDT 2015
On 24.08.2015 21:48, Yakir Yang wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 在 08/24/2015 12:20 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski 写道:
>> On 24.08.2015 11:42, Yakir Yang wrote:
>>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>> 在 08/23/2015 07:43 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski 写道:
>>>> 2015-08-24 8:23 GMT+09:00 Rob Herring <robherring2 at gmail.com>:
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Yakir Yang <ykk at rock-chips.com>
>>>>>> Analogix dp driver is split from exynos dp driver, so we just
>>>>>> make an copy of exynos_dp.txt, and then simplify exynos_dp.txt
>>>>>> Beside update some exynos dtsi file with the latest change
>>>>>> according to the devicetree binding documents.
>>>>> You can't just change the exynos bindings and break compatibility. Is
>>>>> there some agreement with exynos folks to do this?
>>>> No, there is no agreement. This wasn't even sent to Exynos maintainers.
>>> Sorry about this one, actually I have add Exynos maintainers in version
>>> 1 & version 2,
>>> but lose some maintainers in version 3, I would fix it in bellow
>>>> Additionally the patchset did not look interesting to me because of
>>>> misleading subject - Documentation instead of "ARM: dts:".
>>>> Yakir, please:
>>>> 1. Provide backward compatibility. Mark old properties as deprecated
>>>> but still support them.
>>> Do you mean that I should keep the old properties declare in
>>> but just mark them as deprecated flag.
>> That is one of ways how to do this. However more important is that
>> driver should still support old bindings so such code:
>> - if (of_property_read_u32(dp_node, "samsung,color-space",
>> + if (of_property_read_u32(dp_node, "analogix,color-space",
>> is probably wrong. Will the driver support old DTB in the same way as it
>> was supporting before the change?
> Okay, I got your means. So document is not the focus, the most important
> is that
> driver should support the old dts prop.
Right, the focus is on the driver.
> If so the new analogix dp driver
> should keep
> the "samsung,color-space", rather then just mark it with [DEPRECATED] flag.
If you are replacing a binding/property then it should be marked
deprecated. This means that the old property is still working but new
users of it should not be added.
> But from your follow suggest, I think you agree to update driver code,
> and just mark
> old prop with deprecated flag. If so I think such code would not be wrong
> - if (of_property_read_u32(dp_node, "samsung,color-space",
> + if (of_property_read_u32(dp_node, "analogix,color-space",
It looks wrong because it breaks backward compatibility with existing
DTB. As I said before:
>>> 1. Provide backward compatibility. Mark old properties
>>> as deprecated but still support them.
> And actually @Rob have suggest me to remove the prefix, just use
> "color-space" here.
For new bindings I don't mind. But please remember about existing users,
existing DTB and bisectability.
>>> Let me show same examples, make
>>> me understand your suggest rightly.
>> exynos-dp already contains deprecated properties. Other ways of doing
>> this would be:
>> It depends up to you. The "touchscreen" looks good because it organizes
>> old properties in a common section. In case of exynos-dp.txt you can add
>> at beginning of file information about new bindings and mark everything
> Whoops, thanks for your remind, I prefer the "touchscreen" style.
>>> 1. "samsung,ycbcr-coeff" is abandoned in latest analogix-dp driver,
>>> I should not carry this to analogix-dp.txt document. But I should
>>> keep this in
>>> exynos-dp.txt document, and mark them with an little
>>> "deprecated" flag.
>>> Required properties for dp-controller:
>>> -samsung,ycbcr-coeff (DEPRECATED):
>>> YCbCr co-efficients for input video.
>>> COLOR_YCBCR601 = 0, COLOR_YCBCR709 = 1
>>> Is it right ?
>> Yes, this is right.
>>>> 2. Separate all DTS changes to a separate patch, unless bisectability
>>>> would be hurt. Anyway you should prepare it in a such way that
>>>> separation would be possible without breaking bisectability.
>>> So I should separate this patch into two parts, one is name "Document:",
>>> the other is "ARM: dts: ".
>>> Honestly, I don't understand what the "bisectability" means in this
>> I was referring to bisectability in general. The patchset should be
>> fully bisectable which means that it does not introduce any issues
>> during "git bisect". This effectively means that at each intermediate
>> step (after applying each patch, one by one) every existing stuff works
>> the same as previously without any regression. Including booting with
>> old DTB.
> Oh, thanks for your careful explain, so I guess your first comment is
> talking about
> the "bisectability" that if I only apply the 01 - 05 patches, kernel
> could not bootup
> normally, cause driver need "analogix,color-space" but DTB only have
Right. In the same time please remember that kernel may be booted with
More information about the Linux-rockchip