On 2013-12-13 11:27, Archit Taneja wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 December 2013 05:58 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxx>
>> ---
>> arch/arm/boot/dts/omap4-sdp.dts | 91
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 91 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap4-sdp.dts
>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap4-sdp.dts
>> index 5fc3f43c5a81..e3048f849612 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap4-sdp.dts
>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap4-sdp.dts
>> @@ -550,3 +550,94 @@
>> mode = <3>;
>> power = <50>;
>> };
>> +
>> +&dsi1 {
>> + vdds_dsi-supply = <&vcxio>;
>> +
>> + dsi1_out_ep: endpoint {
>> + remote-endpoint = <&lcd0_in>;
>> + lanes = <0 1 2 3 4 5>;
>
> In the previous revision omapdss DT patchset, the lanes node was a
> member of the panel DT node, and not the dsi DT node. Any reason to
> change this? Does it make more sense this way?
Well, the lane configuration is programmed into the DSI HW. So DSI needs
to know them. Thus the lanes can be considered a property of the DSI.
In some cases, the external encoder or panel also needs to know about
the lanes. In that case, both DSI and the encoder/panel would contain
the same data.
My reasoning where a property belongs to:
If a property is clearly internal to a device, it belongs there. For
example, in this case vdds_dsi-supply is clearly a property of the DSI.
If a property is about the link between two devices, like "lanes" here,
it belongs to both devices. If a device does not need that data for
anything, it can be omitted.
> I suppose it's more suitable for dsi to hold the property if 2 panels
> are connected on the same bus. Say, one with 4 data lanes, and other
> with 2. It would be tricky for the dsi driver to get lane params from 2
> different places and merge them somehow.
It doesn't matter, both would work fine. If the lanes property is in the
DSI node, then the DSI driver finds out the lane config by finding out
which endpoint is used for the panel that's being enabled.
If the lanes property would be in the panel, the panel would pass the
lane config to the DSI when it's enabled.
But I think passing the lane config from panel to DSI (like we do
currently) is not so nice.
>> + };
>> +
>> + lcd0: display@0 {
>> + compatible = "tpo,taal", "panel-dsi-cm";
>> +
>> + gpios = <&gpio4 6 0>; /* 102, reset */
>> +
>> + lcd0_in: endpoint {
>> + remote-endpoint = <&dsi1_out_ep>;
>> + };
>> + };
>
> Is there a reason why lcd0 and lcd1 are children nodes of dsi1 and dsi2
> respectively? I don't see this for panels on other boards.
Yes. The panels are _controlled_ with DSI. We model the child-parent
relationships in DT data based on the control. So an i2c peripheral is
controlled via i2c master, and is thus a child of the i2c master. Same
here. The ports/endpoints are used to define the data path, which is
separate thing from the control path.
DPI panels which don't have any way to control them (except basic things
like gpios) are platform devices without any parent.
If the DPI panel would be controlled with i2c, it'd be a child of an i2c
master.
Tomi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
