Hi, On 09/08/13 20:14, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > MIPI DBI is a configurable-width parallel display bus that transmits > commands and data. > > Add a new DBI Linux bus type that implements the usual bus > infrastructure (including devices and drivers (un)registration and > matching, and bus configuration and access functions). This has been discussed before, but I don't remember that the issue would have been cleared, so I'm bringing it up again. What benefit does a real Linux DBI (or DSI) bus give us, compared to representing the DBI the same way as DPI? DBI & DSI are in practice point-to-point buses, and they do not support probing. Is it just that because DBI and DSI can be used to control a device, they have to be Linux buses? How do you see handling the devices where DBI or DSI is used for video only, and the control is handled via, say, i2c? The module has to register two drivers, and try to keep those in sync? I feel that could get rather hacky. A real Linux bus would be necessary if we had devices that used DBI or DSI only for control, and some other video bus for video data. But that sounds so silly that I think we can just forget about the case. Thus DBI and DSI are used either for video only, or video and control. Tomi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
