Am 14.09.22 um 20:14 schrieb Stephen Boyd:
Quoting Stefan Wahren (2022-09-14 11:09:04)
Am 14.09.22 um 20:05 schrieb Stephen Boyd:
Quoting Stefan Wahren (2022-09-14 10:45:48)
Am 14.09.22 um 17:50 schrieb Stephen Boyd:
Furthermore, I wonder if even that part needs to be implemented. Why
not make a direct call to rpi_firmware_property() and get the max rate?
All of that can live in the drm driver. Making it a generic API that
takes a 'struct clk' means that it looks like any clk can be passed,
when that isn't true. It would be better to restrict it to the one use
case so that the scope of the problem doesn't grow. I understand that it
duplicates a few lines of code, but that looks like a fair tradeoff vs.
exposing an API that can be used for other clks in the future.
it would be nice to keep all the Rpi specific stuff out of the DRM
driver, since there more users of it.
Instead of 'all' did you mean 'any'?
yes
Why?
This firmware is written specific for the Raspberry Pi and not stable
from interface point of view. So i'm afraid that the DRM driver is only
usable for the Raspberry Pi at the end with all these board specific
dependencies. Emma invested a lot of time to make this open source and
now it looks that like that more and more functionality moves back to
firmware.
