Rob,
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Ajay kumar <ajaynumb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Sorry for the previous reply,
>>
>> Here goes the full explaination:
>>
>>> Rob,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> So what about, rather than adding drm_panel support to each bridge
>>>> individually, we introduce a drm_panel_bridge (with a form of
>>>> chaining).. ie:
>>>>
>>>> struct drm_panel_bridge {
>>>> struct drm_bridge base;
>>>> struct drm_panel *panel;
>>>> struct drm_bridge *bridge; /* optional */
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> static void drm_panel_bridge_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge)
>>>> {
>>>> struct drm_panel_bridge *pb = to_panel_bridge(bridge);
>>>> if (pb->bridge)
>>>> pb->bridge->funcs->enable(pb->bridge);
>>>> pb->panel->funcs->enable(pb->panel);
>>>> }
>>>>
>> We cannot call them like this from crtc helpers in the order you mentioned,
>> since each individual bridge chip expects the panel controls at
>> different places.
>> I mean,
>> -- sometimes panel controls needs to be done before bridge
>> controls(ptn3460: before RST_N and PD_N)
>
> well, this is why bridge has pre-enable/enable/disable/post-disable
> hooks, so you can choose before or after..
These calls are for a bridge to sync with the encoder calls.
We might end up defining pre-enable/enable/disable/post-disable for a
panel to sync
with the bridge calls! I have explained below.
>> -- sometimes in between the bridge controls (ps8622: one panel control
>> before SLP_N and one after SLP_N)
>> -- sometimes panel controls needs to be done after bridge controls.
>
> I am not convinced that a generic panel/bridge adapter is not
> possible. Maybe we need more fine grained fxn ptr callbacks, although
> seems like pre+post should give you enough. It would certainly be
> easier than having to add panel support in each individual bridge
> driver (which seems like it will certainly result that only certain
> combinations of panel+bridge actually work as intended)
Ok. Consider this case:
Currently, we have the sequence as "bridge->pre_enable,
encoder_enable, bridge->enable"
And, the bridge should obviously be enabled in bridge->pre_enable.
Now, where do you choose to call panel->pre_enable?
-- as the first step of bridge->pre_enable, before we pull up/down bridge GPIOs.
-- at the last step of bridge->pre_enable, after we pull up/down the
bridge GPIOs.
Ideally, PTN3460 expects it to be the second case, and PS8625 expects
it to be the first case.
So, we will end up adding pre_pre_enable, post_pre_enable to
accomodate such scenarios.
So, we leave the choice for the individual bridge chip drivers to
implement panel
power up/down controls in the place where they wish to.
Thanks and regards,
Ajay Kumar
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
