On 03-06-21, 16:40, abhinavk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On 2021-06-02 04:01, Vinod Koul wrote: > > On 27-05-21, 16:30, Rob Clark wrote: > > > > yeah that is always a very different world. although it might make sense > > to use information in tables and try to deduce information about the > > system can be helpful... > > > > > I'd worry more about what makes sense in a DT world, when it comes to > > > DT bindings. > > > > And do you have thoughts on that..? > > At the moment, I will comment on the bindings first and my idea on how to > proceed. > The bindings mentioned here: > https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/20210521124946.3617862-3-vkoul@xxxxxxxxxx/ > seem to be just > taken directly from downstream which was not the plan. > > I think all of these should be part of the generic panel bindings as none of > these are QC specific: Okay so we have discussed this w/ Bjorn and Abhinav and here are the conclusions and recommendations for binding 1. the properties are generic and not msm specific 2. The host supports multiple formats but the one we choose depends mostly upon panel. Notably host runs the config which the panel supports. So the recommendations is to add a table of dsc properties in the panel driver. No DT binding here. I should also note that for DP we should be able to calculate these values from EDID like the i915 driver seems to do With this I will drop the binding patch and move dsc properties to panel driver Thanks -- ~Vinod
