On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 04:50:04PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Maxime, > > On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 03:23:24PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 03:43:42PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 09:18:19AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 10:38:19PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > > > Hi Maxime, > > > > > > > > > > (CC'ing Sakari) > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the patch. > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 04:48:23PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > > > > MIPI-DSI devices, if they are controlled through the bus itself, have to > > > > > > be described as a child node of the controller they are attached to. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus, there's no requirement on the controller having an OF-Graph output > > > > > > port to model the data stream: it's assumed that it would go from the > > > > > > parent to the child. > > > > > > > > > > > > However, some bridges controlled through the DSI bus still require an > > > > > > input OF-Graph port, thus requiring a controller with an OF-Graph output > > > > > > port. This prevents those bridges from being used with the controllers > > > > > > that do not have one without any particular reason to. > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's drop that requirement. > > > > > > > > > > I'm sure this won't come as a surprise, I'm very much opposed to this > > > > > change, for two reasons. > > > > > > > > > > First, ports are part of the hardware, even if they're not connected. It > > > > > thus simplifies handling in drivers if they're always present. > > > > > > > > > > Then, and that's the most important reason, I think it's a mistake not > > > > > to model the DSI data connection using OF graph unconditionally, even > > > > > when the DSI sink device is also controlled through the DSI bus (using > > > > > DCS) and is in that case a child of the DSI source device in the DT > > > > > hierarchy. > > > > > > > > That's the way we do for any other device though. You never addressed > > > > that comment, but it's very much the same that occurs for i2c or spi > > > > controllers and their device. They all get their data from the parent > > > > bus. I don't see you advocate for using OF-Graph for those devices. > > > > > > Those are different, there's no data stream independent of the control > > > communications. > > > > Fine, then you have Ethernet PHYs, or any MMIO device that does DMA. > > > > > > > The device tree describes a control hierarchy between devices. OF graph > > > > > overlays on top of that a data transfer graph. The two are different > > > > > concepts, and the fact that DSI can sometimes be used as a control bus > > > > > doesn't change the concept. Using OF graph unconditionally to describe > > > > > the data connections for DSI leads to less variation in the device tree > > > > > structure, and thus less complexity in the implementation. We're > > > > > suffering from the fact we haven't made it a requirement in the first > > > > > place, which can't be fixed due to ABI breakage constraints, but let's > > > > > not acknowledge it as a good idea. > > > > > > > > Honestly, it doesn't matter one bit. > > > > > > > > We have a huge discrepancy here today, and only a couple of bridges have > > > > that arbitrary restriction. The situation you don't want to acknowledge > > > > is the de-facto standard, by the generic binding and by what all the > > > > bridges and panels are implementing. Even panel-simple-dsi is doing it. > > > > So it's very much there already. > > > > > > It's here, and I think we should move away from it for new DSI sinks. > > > I'd like OF graph to be used consistently for new drivers. We can't > > > change existing DT bindings and drivers to drop support for the > > > non-OF-graph description due to ABI stability, but we can avoid > > > repeating the mistake going forward. > > > > > > > What I'm trying to address here is that some controllers that do > > > > everything right can't be used because that restriction is completely > > > > arbitrary and in opposition to the consensus. And they can't be used > > > > *today*. > > > > > > > > If we want to change that consensus, fine, but we should still have one. > > > > Having some bridges enforcing custom rules for no reason is very much > > > > unacceptable. > > > > > > > > And changing that consensus won't happen overtime, we'll have to take > > > > care of the backward compatibility, etc. So it won't fix the issue that > > > > we can't use any bridge with any controller any time soon. > > > > > > I don't think that's the issue at hand here. You can still use a > > > non-OF-graph DT event if the nodes for the two bridges affected by this > > > patch define a port@0. It can just be left unconnected. > > > > > > I do agree it will cause some DT bindings for DCS-based DSI sinks to > > > have ports will others won't. If your concern is that all DT bindings > > > should be coherent, would you be OK with a patch that makes the sink > > > port mandatory in all DT bindings for DSI bridges and panels (and fixes > > > the mainline DT sources accordingly to make sure they validate) ? The > > > port would not be connected of course (at least when used with DSI > > > source drivers that don't use OF graph today). That would make DT > > > bindings coherent, and would be a first step towards using OF graph > > > everywhere. > > > > I'm trying to fix a (recent) mistake/cargo-cult in new bindings. That > > discussion is not going to be fairly controversial and I don't see how > > that can be solved quickly. So, as a second step, why not. But this one > > needs to come first. > > I don't think we need to flip the switch in one go, even on the DT > binding side, we could agree on a direction for new bindings and then > migrate the existing ones. The migration time should be minimized > though, I agree about your cargo cult comment though, it's painful. And > it shouldn't be difficult to convert all DT bindings in one go if we > decide to do so. Changing drivers would be more complex, but that > doesn't need to be tied to the bindings. > > tl;dr: I'm fine dropping the required port@0 here short term to avoid > divergence in bindings, as long as it won't be used as an argument > against me in the future to make port@0 mandatory again :-) That's what I had in mind all along, so it's fine by me :) And I plan on staying far away from that discussion Maxime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
