On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 11:40:30AM +0200, 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. Because the panel that comes with the Teres-I is always the same. However, that's not true for all the devices out there using the bridge, starting with the pinebook. > OTOH, as I checked during the discussion with anarsoul, the panel's > supply voltage is permanently connected to the main 3.3V rail. Again, that may be the case on the Teres-I, but not necessarily on other boards. > 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. That's not really the outcome of the discussion we had here though: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/305035/ > 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? Depending on the outcome of the discussion above, yes or no :) Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
