On 3/1/22 11:04, Lucas Stach wrote:
Hi,
[...]
Given the two totally different IPs, I don't see bugs of IP control
logics should be fixed for both drivers. Naturally, the two would
diverge due to different HWs. Looking at Patch 9/9, it basically
squashes code to control LCDIFv3 into the mxsfb drm driver with
'if/else' checks(barely no common control code), which is hard to
maintain and not able to achieve good scalability for both 'LCDIFv3'
and 'LCDIF'.
I tend to agree with Liu here. Writing a DRM driver isn't that much
boilerplate anymore with all the helpers we have available in the
framework today.
I did write a separate driver for this IP before I spent time merging
them into single driver, that's when I realized a single driver is much
better and discarded the separate driver idea.
The IP is so different from the currently supported LCDIF controllers
that I think trying to support this one in the existing driver actually
increases the chances to break something when modifying the driver in
the future. Not everyone is able to test all LCDIF versions. My vote is
on having a separate driver for the i.MX8MP LCDIF.
If you look at both controllers, it is clear it is still the LCDIF
behind, even the CSC that is bolted on would suggest that.
I am also not happy when I look at the amount of duplication a separate
driver would create, it will be some 50% of the code that would be just
duplicated.
[...]
