On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 6:42 PM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 11:17 PM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>> Normally, we the physical panel is described which would imply all these >>>>> settings. Are there lots of panels with this controller that would >>>>> justify all these settings? >>>> >>>> The datasheet for the ili9322 just says it "drives panels" essentially. >>>> Googling around gives at hand that it is used pretty frequently in >>>> Shenzhen China for adapting different off-the-shelf panels to >>>> different inputs. >>>> >>>> I can't really answer how many of these products that run one or >>>> another OS using device tree to describe the configuration. It feels more >>>> like I'm paving the road for others to travel. >> >> Not really a road I want to pave and encourage others. > > It's good when maintainers say "no"! :) Only other maintainers think so. :) >>>>>> + - ilitek,entry-mode: the panel can be connected to various input streams >>>>>> + and four of them can be selected by electronic straps on the display. >>>>>> + However it is possible to select another mode or override the >>>>>> + electronic default with this property. Valid values: >>>>>> + 0: 8 bit serial RGB through >>>>>> + 1: 8 bit serial RGB aligned >>>>>> + 2: 8 bit serial RGB dummy 320x240 >>>>>> + 3: 8 bit serial RGB dummy 360x240 >>>>>> + 4: disabled >>>>>> + 5: 24 bit parallel RGB through >>>>>> + 6: 24 bit parallel RGB aligned >>>>>> + 7: 24 bit YUV 640Y 320CbCr >>>>>> + 8: 24 bit YUV 720Y 360CbCr >>>>>> + 9: disabled >>>>>> + 10: 8 bit ITU-R BT.656 720Y 360CbCr >>>>>> + 11: 8 bit ITU-R BT.656 640Y 320CbCr >>>>> >>>>> To some extent, we have some standard bindings to describe this. >>>> >>>> I don't find any. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places :( >> >> I guess bus-width is all we have. Normally, this is all implied by the >> compatible strings of either the controller, panel or both. >> >> Another way to look at it is, we already have support for lots of >> panels and controllers. If those haven't needed to specify this >> information, then why do you? > > It's a question about devicetree vs driver configuration data altogether. > An intuitive thing, gray area. Your intuition is likely better. > > I feel the same about the people who push too much pin control > data into the device tree instead of the driver so I understand the > issue. (If it is that.) Yes, that's it. We don't want bindings that try to parameterize *everything* in "generic" bindings. >>>> Also the input modes of ili9322 is coupled with resolution so >>>> it would need two more cells or so for resolution so I feel >>>> it would over-complicate things for these 12 enumerators. >>> >>> Can we proceed with these patches? >>> >>> Any opinion from DT or panel maintainers? >> >> You have my opinion. I don't think Thierry's will be different. >> >> My suggestion is to move the settings you need into the panel driver >> and out of DT. We can always move things to DT later if it makes >> sense. > > Sure thing. I will take the approach of compatible string like this: > > compatible = "ilitek,ili9322", "dlink,dir685-panel"; > > And use the latter compatible to set up all the stuff in the panel > driver, what about that? Sounds good, but you need to reverse the order here. Most specific first. Rob _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
