On Friday 31 August 2012 07:40 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
On Thu, 2012-08-30 at 17:10 +0530, Archit Taneja wrote:
Links between DSS entities are made in dss_recheck_connections when a new panel
is probed. Rewrite the code in dss_recheck_connections to link managers to
outputs, and outputs to devices.
The fields in omap_dss_device struct gives information on which output and
manager to connect to. The desired manager and output pointers are retrieved and
prepared(existing outputs/devices unset, if default display)) to form the
desired links. The output is linked to the device, and then the manager to the
output. If a probed device's required manager isn't free, the required output
is still connected to the device so that it's easier to use the panel in the
future.
I've been pondering this one, and I can't come to a conclusion. The
recheck_connections is just so ugly that I'd like to get rid of it =). I
guess this patch doesn't make it any more ugly, so we can include it in
the patch series.
And as I mentioned earlier, I think we should get rid of the
OMAP_DISPLAY_TYPE_* enum, as it's kinda extra now. But doing that would
require changing all board files. That's not out of the question, but I
think we should first make sure we know what we are doing with the board
files so we don't go back and forth there.
Yes, I didn't remove it for the same reason.
Just gathering my thoughts:
When we define a panel in DT/board file, we should also define the
output instance, because that's part of the hardware design. But there
It's a part of hardware design if the panel can't be detached. But yes,
even for detachable panels, we can assume that the panel would
eventually connect to that output.
are no hardcoded links between mgrs and outputs, so that doesn't belong
to the DT/board file. For example, omap4460's DSI1 can take input from
LCD1 or LCD2.
Right, so we don't need an equivalent of the dssdev->channel field in DT
info. As you said, we need the output instance, is that why you were
sceptical about it being defined as an enum in previous patches?
Probably we could define output instances in DT as a pair of instance
number and instance type {number, type}. It would be sort of hard to
play around with those within OMAPDSS though.
So who could/should make the decision which mgr to use... Well, I don't
know on what basis the decision can be made, but I still think omapdss
can't make good decisions on that, so probably the whole "chain" should
be configured in the omapfb/omapdrm level.
Which manager to chose could be simply picking up the next free manager
which can connect to that output. omapfb/drm can take care of that.
Archit
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
