Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: display: bridge: add TI TDP158

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 28/06/2024 09:49, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 09:36:57AM GMT, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 27/06/2024 18:45, Marc Gonzalez wrote:
>>> On 27/06/2024 18:25, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 01:13:03PM +0200, Marc Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> TDP158 is an AC-coupled DVI / HDMI to TMDS level shifting Redriver.
>>>>> It supports DVI 1.0, HDMI 1.4b and 2.0b.
>>>>> It supports 4 TMDS channels, HPD, and a DDC interface.
>>>>> It supports dual power supply rails (1.1V on VDD, 3.3V on VCC)
>>>>> for power reduction. Several methods of power management are
>>>>> implemented to reduce overall power consumption.
>>>>> It supports fixed receiver EQ gain using I2C or pin strap to
>>>>> compensate for different lengths input cable or board traces.
>>>>>
>>>>> Features
>>>>>
>>>>> - AC-coupled TMDS or DisplayPort dual-mode physical layer input
>>>>> to HDMI 2.0b TMDS physical layer output supporting up to 6Gbps
>>>>> data rate, compatible with HDMI 2.0b electrical parameters
>>>>> - DisplayPort dual-mode standard version 1.1
>>>>> - Programmable fixed receiver equalizer up to 15.5dB
>>>>> - Global or independent high speed lane control, pre-emphasis
>>>>> and transmit swing, and slew rate control
>>>>> - I2C or pin strap programmable
>>>>> - Configurable as a DisplayPort redriver through I2C
>>>>> - Full lane swap on main lanes
>>>>> - Low power consumption (200 mW at 6Gbps, 8 mW in shutdown)
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/tdp158.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Marc Gonzalez <mgonzalez@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  .../bindings/display/bridge/ti,tdp158.yaml         | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>  1 file changed, 51 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/ti,tdp158.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/ti,tdp158.yaml
>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>> index 0000000000000..21c8585c3bb2d
>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/ti,tdp158.yaml
>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
>>>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
>>>>> +%YAML 1.2
>>>>> +---
>>>>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/display/bridge/ti,tdp158.yaml#
>>>>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
>>>>> +
>>>>> +title: TI TDP158 HDMI to TMDS Redriver
>>>>> +
>>>>> +maintainers:
>>>>> +  - Arnaud Vrac <avrac@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> +  - Pierre-Hugues Husson <phhusson@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +properties:
>>>>> +  compatible:
>>>>> +    const: ti,tdp158
>>>>> +
>>>>> +  reg:
>>>>> +    description: I2C address of the device
>>>>
>>>> Is reg not required? How do you communicate with the device if the i2c
>>>> bus is not connected? Is the enable GPIO enough to operate it in some
>>>> situations?
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise this looks good to me, but given Maxime commented about the
>>>> complexity of the device, I'm probably out of my depth!
>>>
>>> Valid question.
>>>
>>> As discussed in my brilliantly expanded commit message (:p)
>>> the device can be configured in various ways, either through I2C registers
>>> or by pin strap. We use the device in its default settings, so we don't
>>> touch any I2C registers, thus I'm not sure the reg property is required.
>>
>> But then how would it be represented in the DT? Where / under which parent?
>>
>> If this is supposed to be always in I2C bus in DT, then you always need
>> reg. If you could place it in other place, then your reasoning is valid
>> - reg is optional.
> 
> As far as I understood, the device is connected to I2C bus, it just
> doesn't need to be programmed. So I'd conclude that reg is required.

Just to be clear (and as far as I understand),
the TDP158 can be configured via 2 different methods:
- dynamically at run-time, through I2C registers (requires an I2C bus)
- statically at layout-time through pin straps (no I2C bus required)

On our board, the TDP158 is connected to blsp2_i2c1.

So, in my understanding, the "reg" property would be required
for the first method, but is not applicable for the second method.

I don't feel strongly about the issue, so I can mark the "reg"
property as required if it makes more sense.

Regards





[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [Linux for Sparc]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux