Hi, Am Dienstag, 24. Januar 2023, 08:59:39 CET schrieb Liu Ying: > On Mon, 2023-01-23 at 16:57 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > > On 1/23/23 08:23, Liu Ying wrote: > > > The LCDIF embedded in i.MX93 SoC is essentially the same to those > > > in i.MX8mp SoC. However, i.MX93 LCDIF may connect with MIPI DSI > > > controller through LCDIF cross line pattern(controlled by mediamix > > > blk-ctrl) or connect with LVDS display bridge(LDB) directly or a > > > parallel display(also through mediamix blk-ctrl), so add multiple > > > encoders(with DRM_MODE_ENCODER_NONE encoder type) support in the > > > LCDIF DRM driver and find a bridge to attach the relevant encoder's > > > chain when needed. While at it, derive lcdif_crtc_state structure > > > from drm_crtc_state structure to introduce bus_format and bus_flags > > > states so that the next downstream bridges may use consistent bus > > > format and bus flags. > > > > Would it be possible to split this patch into preparatory clean up > > and > > i.MX93 addition ? It seems like the patch is doing two things > > according > > to the commit message. > > IMHO, all the patch does is for i.MX93 addition, not for clean up. > Note that the single LCDIF embedded in i.MX93 SoC may connect with MIPI > DSI/LVDS/parallel related bridges to drive triple displays > _simultaneously_ in theory, while the three LCDIF instances embedded in > i.MX8mp SoC connect with MIPI DSI/LVDS/HDMI displays respectively(one > LCDIF maps to one display). The multiple encoders addition and the new > checks for consistent bus format and bus flags are only for i.MX93 > LCDIF, not for i.MX8mp LCDIF. Also, I think the multiple encoders > addition and the new checks should be done together - if the new checks > come first, then the new checks do not make sense(no multiple displays > driven by LCDIF); You are right on this one, but on the other hand there are lot of preparing patches already. Even if it is useless by itself, having the bus format & flag checks in a separate patch, it is easier to review, IMHO. > if the new checks come later, then it would be a bug > to allow inconsistent bus format and bus flags across the next > downstream bridges when only adding multiple encoders support(also, I > don't know which encoder's bridge should determine the LCDIF output bus > format and bus flags, since the three encoders come together with the > three next bridges). Agreed, this order is a no-go. Best regards, Alexander > Regards, > Liu Ying
