On 07/04/2014 07:57 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote: > Hi Andrejz, > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi Alexandre, >> >> Thanks for the patch. >> >> On 07/02/2014 02:19 PM, Alexandre Courbot wrote: >>> As per section 5.6.1 of the DSI specification, all DSI transmitters must >>> support continuous clock behavior on the clock lane, while non-continuous >>> mode support is only optional. Add a flag that allows devices to indicate >>> that they require continuous clock mode to operate properly. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> include/drm/drm_mipi_dsi.h | 2 ++ >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/include/drm/drm_mipi_dsi.h b/include/drm/drm_mipi_dsi.h >>> index 944f33f..5913ef4 100644 >>> --- a/include/drm/drm_mipi_dsi.h >>> +++ b/include/drm/drm_mipi_dsi.h >>> @@ -94,6 +94,8 @@ void mipi_dsi_host_unregister(struct mipi_dsi_host *host); >>> #define MIPI_DSI_MODE_VSYNC_FLUSH BIT(8) >>> /* disable EoT packets in HS mode */ >>> #define MIPI_DSI_MODE_EOT_PACKET BIT(9) >>> +/* use continuous clock behavior on the clock lane */ >>> +#define MIPI_DSI_MODE_CLOCK_CONTINUOUS BIT(10) >>> >> According to MIPI DSI specification "All DSI transmitters and receivers >> shall support continuous clock behavior on the Clock Lane, and >> optionally may support non-continuous clock behavior". It suggests that >> continuous clock should be default behavior. So maybe better is to >> introduce sth like: >> +#define MIPI_DSI_MODE_CLOCK_NON_CONTINUOUS BIT(10) > I started under the assumption that current host drivers assumed > non-continuous clock (as the Tegra driver currently does). Exynos DSI driver uses continuous clock. Currently, in mainline, there are no more dsi hosts using drm_mipi_dsi.h. As I stated before I prefer to follow dsi specification and it states clearly that continuous behavior is required, non-continouous is optional. Moreover for tegra chip continuous behavior is also the default one. Regards Andrzej > In that > light, it seemed to make sense (and to be less intrusive) to introduce > that flag as a restriction rather than a capability. But if you think > this should be a capability I am not strongly against it - either way, > host drivers need to be changed to take that flag into account. > _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
