On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 7:10 PM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 02:09:33PM +0100, Paweł Anikiel wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 1:18 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski > > <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On 28/02/2024 12:05, Paweł Anikiel wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 3:29 PM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 11:59:42AM +0100, Paweł Anikiel wrote: > > > >>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 10:13 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski > > > >>> <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On 21/02/2024 17:02, Paweł Anikiel wrote: > > > >>>>> The Intel Displayport RX IP is a part of the DisplayPort Intel FPGA IP > > > >>>>> Core. It implements a DisplayPort 1.4 receiver capable of HBR3 video > > > >>>>> capture and Multi-Stream Transport. The user guide can be found here: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> https://www.intel.com/programmable/technical-pdfs/683273.pdf > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Paweł Anikiel <panikiel@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > >>>>> --- > > > >>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/media/intel,dprx.yaml | 160 ++++++++++++++++++ > > > >>>>> 1 file changed, 160 insertions(+) > > > >>>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/intel,dprx.yaml > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/intel,dprx.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/intel,dprx.yaml > > > >>>>> new file mode 100644 > > > >>>>> index 000000000000..31025f2d5dcd > > > >>>>> --- /dev/null > > > >>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/intel,dprx.yaml > > > >>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,160 @@ > > > >>>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause > > > >>>>> +%YAML 1.2 > > > >>>>> +--- > > > >>>>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/media/intel,dprx.yaml# > > > >>>>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > > >>>>> + > > > >>>>> +title: Intel DisplayPort RX IP > > > >>>>> + > > > >>>>> +maintainers: > > > >>>>> + - Paweł Anikiel <panikiel@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > >>>>> + > > > >>>>> +description: | > > > >>>>> + The Intel Displayport RX IP is a part of the DisplayPort Intel FPGA IP > > > >>>>> + Core. It implements a DisplayPort 1.4 receiver capable of HBR3 video > > > >>>>> + capture and Multi-Stream Transport. > > > >>>>> + > > > >>>>> + The IP features a large number of configuration parameters, found at: > > > >>>>> + https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/docs/programmable/683273/23-3-20-0-1/sink-parameters.html > > > >>>>> + > > > >>>>> + The following parameters have to be enabled: > > > >>>>> + - Support DisplayPort sink > > > >>>>> + - Enable GPU control > > > >>>>> + The following parameters' values have to be set in the devicetree: > > > >>>>> + - RX maximum link rate > > > >>>>> + - Maximum lane count > > > >>>>> + - Support MST > > > >>>>> + - Max stream count (only if Support MST is enabled) > > > >>>>> + > > > >>>>> +properties: > > > >>>>> + compatible: > > > >>>>> + const: intel,dprx-20.0.1 > > > >>>>> + > > > >>>>> + reg: > > > >>>>> + maxItems: 1 > > > >>>>> + > > > >>>>> + interrupts: > > > >>>>> + maxItems: 1 > > > >>>>> + > > > >>>>> + intel,max-link-rate: > > > >>>>> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32 > > > >>>>> + description: Max link rate configuration parameter > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Please do not duplicate property name in description. It's useless. > > > >>>> Instead explain what is this responsible for. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Why max-link-rate would differ for the same dprx-20.0.1? And why > > > >>>> standard properties cannot be used? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Same for all questions below. > > > >>> > > > >>> These four properties are the IP configuration parameters mentioned in > > > >>> the device description. When generating the IP core you can set these > > > >>> parameters, which could make them differ for the same dprx-20.0.1. > > > >>> They are documented in the user guide, for which I also put a link in > > > >>> the description. Is that enough? Or should I also document these > > > >>> parameters here? > > > >> > > > >> Use the standard properties: link-frequencies and data-lanes. Those go > > > >> under the port(s) because they are inheritly per logical link. > > > > > > > > The DP receiver has one input interface (a deserialized DP stream), > > > > and up to four output interfaces (the decoded video streams). The "max > > > > link rate" and "max lane count" parameters only describe the input > > > > interface to the receiver. However, the port(s) I am using here are > > > > for the output streams. They are not affected by those parameters, so > > > > I don't think these properties should go under the output port(s). > > > > > > > > The receiver doesn't have an input port in the DT, because there isn't > > > > any controllable entity on the other side - the deserializer doesn't > > > > have any software interface. Since these standard properties > > > > (link-frequencies and data-lanes) are only defined in > > > > video-interfaces.yaml (which IIUC describes a graph endpoint), I can't > > > > use them directly in the device node. > > > > > > DT describes the hardware, so where does the input come? From something, > > > right? Regardless if you have a driver or not. There is dp-connector > > > binding, if this is physical port. > > > > Yes, it is a physical port. I agree adding a DT node for the physical > > DP input connector would let us add link-frequencies to the input port > > of the receiver. > > > > However, dp-connector seems to be a binding for an output port - it's > > under schemas/display/connector, and DP_PWR can be a power supply only > > for an output port (looking at the dp-pwr-supply property). Also, the > > driver for this binding is a DRM bridge driver (display-connector.c) > > which would not be compatible with a v4l2 (sub)device. > > So then we should add 'dp-input-connector' because they are different. > When we haven't defined connectors, properties of the connector have > been shoved in whatever node is associated with a connector like you > have done. That works for a while, but then becomes unmanageable. DP on > USB-C connectors for example. > > OTOH, maybe your use here is niche enough to not be worth the trouble. > Depends if we see the need for video input connectors in general. My use case is a dedicated hardware that runs DP tests of an external DUT. I can't think of another scenario where we'd need an input DP port. IMO this is pretty niche, but I'll leave the decision to you
