On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 05:49:21PM -0700, Vasily Khoruzhick wrote: > > > Maybe instead of edp-connector one would introduce integrator's specific > > > connector, for example with compatible "olimex,teres-edp-connector" > > > which should follow edp abstract connector rules? This will be at least > > > consistent with below presentation[1] - eDP requirements depends on > > > integrator. Then if olimex has standard way of dealing with panels > > > present in olimex/teres platforms the driver would then create > > > drm_panel/drm_connector/drm_bridge(?) according to these rules, I guess. > > > Anyway it still looks fishy for me :), maybe because I am not > > > familiarized with details of these platforms. > > > > That makes sense yes > > Actually, it makes no sense at all. Current implementation for anx6345 > driver works fine as is with any panel specified assuming panel delays > are long enough for connected panel. It just doesn't use panel timings > from the driver. Creating a platform driver for connector itself looks > redundant since it can't be reused, it doesn't describe actual > hardware and it's just defeats purpose of DT by introducing > board-specific code. I'm not sure where you got the idea that the purpose of DT is to not have any board-specific code. It's perfectly fine to have some, that's even why there's a compatible assigned to each and every board. What the DT is about is allowing us to have a generic behaviour that we can detect: we can have a given behaviour for a given board, and a separate one for another one, and this will be evaluated at runtime. This is *exactly* what this is about: we can have a compatible that sets a given, more specific, behaviour (olimex,teres-edp-connector) while saying that this is compatible with the generic behaviour (edp-connector). That way, any OS will know what quirk to apply if needed, and if not that it can use the generic behaviour. And we could create a generic driver, for the generic behaviour if needed. > There's another issue: if we introduce edp-connector we'll have to > specify power up delays somewhere (in dts? or in platform driver?), so > edp-connector doesn't really solve the issue of multiple panels with > same motherboard. And that's what that compatible is about :) > I'd say DT overlays should be preferred solution here, not another > connector binding. Overlays are a way to apply a device tree dynamically. It's orthogonal to the binding. Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
