On 07.06.2019 11:40, Torsten Duwe wrote: > On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 08:28:02AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 03:59:27PM +0200, Harald Geyer wrote: >>> If think valid compatible properties would be: >>> compatible = "innolux,n116bge", "simple-panel"; >>> compatible = "edp-connector", "simple-panel"; >> A connector isn't a panel. >> >>> compatible = "innolux,n116bge", "edp-connector", "simple-panel"; >> And the innolux,n116bge is certainly not a connector either. >> >>> compatible = "edp-connector", "innolux,n116bge", "simple-panel"; >>> >>> I can't make up my mind which one I prefere. However neither of these >>> variants requires actually implmenting an edp-connector driver. >> No-one asked to do an edp-connector driver. You should use it in your >> DT, but if you want to have some code in your driver that parses the >> DT directly, I'm totally fine with that. > I must admit I fail to understand what that extra node would be good for. > Logically, the eDP far side is connected to the well-known n116bge. > Inside the laptop case it might as well be a flat ribbon cable or > soldered directly. > In good intention, that's all I wanted to express in the DT. I don't > know whether the relevant mechanical dimensions of the panel and the > connector are standardised, so whether one could in theory assemble it > with a different panel than the one it came with. > > OTOH, as I checked during the discussion with anarsoul, the panel's > supply voltage is permanently connected to the main 3.3V rail. > We already agreed that the eDP output port must not neccessarily be > specified, this setup is a good example why: because the panel is > always powered, the anx6345 can always pull valid EDID data from it > so at this stage there's no need for any OS driver to reach beyond > the bridge. IIRC even the backlight got switched off for the blank > screen without. > > All I wanted to say is that "there's usually an n116bge behind it"; > but this is mostly redundant. > > So, shall we just drop the output port specification (along with the > panel node) in order to get one step further? I am not sure if I understand whole discussion here, but I also do not understand whole edp-connector thing. According to VESA[1] eDP is "Internal display interface" - there is no external connector for eDP, the way it is connected is integrator's decision, but it is fixed - ie end user do not plug/unplug it. If I remember correctly in some boards eDP is connected to some DP connector (odroid xu3 if I remember correctly), but this is non-standard hack, and for this case in bindings there should be rather dp-connector not edp-connector. [1]: https://www.vesa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/DisplayPort-DevCon-Presentation-eDP-Dec-2010-v3.pdf Regards Andrzej > >> I guess you should describe why do you think it's "clear", because I'm >> not sure this is obvious for everyone here. eDP allows to discover >> which device is on the other side and its supported timings, just like >> HDMI for example (or regular DP, for that matter). Would you think >> it's clearly preferable to ship a DT with the DP/HDMI monitor >> connected on the other side exposed as a panel as well? > Well, as I wrote: "in good intention". That's the panel that comes with > the kit but it is very well detected automatically, just like you describe. > > So, just leave it out? > > Torsten > > >
