[PATCH v3 3/6] drm/rockchip/dsi: correct Feedback divider setting
briannorris at chromium.org
Thu Oct 26 14:32:05 PDT 2017
(correction zyw's email ".comg" is not a TLD!)
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 09:44:14AM +0000, Philippe CORNU wrote:
> On 10/26/2017 06:13 AM, Archit Taneja wrote:
> > On 10/26/2017 06:39 AM, Brian Norris wrote:
> >> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 03:57:19AM -0400, Sean Paul wrote:
> >>> Archit asked a question about moving to
> >>> dw-mipi-dsi
> >> That question made me think though: this approach seems backwards. It
> >> seems like someone did copy/paste/fork, and then we're asking the
> >> authors of the original driver to un-fork? It seems like this should
> >> happen the other way around -- those trying to support a new incarnation
> >> should have looked to try to abstract the original driver for their
> >> uses first.
> > Yes, ST wanted to replicate rockchip's version of the mipi DSI driver and
> > put it in their folder. If they did that, their KMS driver would have been
> > the third driver to implement a third instance of the DW DSI controller
> > driver.
> > Hisilicon and Rockchip being the other 2.
I hadn't noticed Hisilicon's version. That's an unfortunate start :(
> > It was either that or attempt at a common DSI DW bridge driver. I suggested
> > the latter.
> > The ST guys have abstracted out the PHY pieces, which they knew varied
> > between
> > rockchip and ST. Ideally, they should have also tried to create a RFC
> > patch to
> > make the rockchip driver use the bridge too. But they didn't do that, and
> > the rockchip or hisilicon people were interested in even looking at it,
> > even after I CC'ed them.
I see. At least the current code from Philippe isn't that big, and it is
indeed fairly similar.
But I still think the way to get cooperation upstream is to enforce it;
so there was a 3rd option to the above -- don't merge *any* new driver
without posting at least an attempt to unify the existing drivers.
> >> IIUC, that's exactly what Rockchip did for much of their Analogix eDP
> >> code -- they reworked the Exynos DP driver to split common Analogix code
> >> from any Exynos-specific bits.
> > I get that. I had hoped either ST or Rockchip guys would have done the
> > similar
> > thing, but no one volunteered.
Nickey, can you confirm that you or someone on your team will look at
utilizing the common driver? Please reply to this email thread before
sending another version of this series.
> >> And actually, the current stuff in
> >> drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/synopsys/dw-mipi-dsi.c is completely unused. It
> >> exports some functions, but I see no users of it. Is that intended? Is
> > The ST kms driver uses it:
> > drivers/gpu/drm/stm/dw_mipi_dsi-stm.c
> I confirm STM32 chipsets use the Synopsys dw dsi bridge driver.
> I plan to improve this bridge driver by adding new features (see todos +
> dsi read, command mode with bta & gpio...).
> For the first commit, I did my best to keep the source code as close as
> possible to the Rockchip version, in order to ease the port for Rockchip
That's nice to see, even if it still isn't ideal.
> >> somebody already working on refactoring existing Rockchip code to use
> >> this?
> > I don't know. If rockchip isn't interested in doing it, we can check with
> > Philippe from ST if he can try creating a RFC that converts the rockchip
> > driver to use the dw-mipi-dsi driver.
> I am not really interested in doing this port for Rockchip (or Hisilicon
> or i.MX...) but happy to help anyone that wants to use the dw-mipi-dsi
> bridge driver :)
Well, see my comments above. Your "interest" is obviously in merging
code to support your own IP, but the community can *make* it your
interest by requiring you do the unification before your code goes
upstream. Apparently that's not the policy here though.
More information about the Linux-rockchip