On 2013년 03월 07일 15:45, Rahul Sharma wrote: > Thanks Seung Woo, Mr. Dae, > > On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 2013/3/7 김승우 <sw0312.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx>: >>> >>> >>> On 2013년 03월 04일 23:05, Rahul Sharma wrote: >>>> Thanks Sean, >>>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Sean Paul <seanpaul@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Rahul Sharma <rahul.sharma@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> Right now hdmiphy operations and configs are kept inside hdmi driver. hdmiphy related >>>>>> code is tightly coupled with hdmi ip driver. Physicaly they are different devices and >>>>> >>>>> s/Physicaly/Physically/ >>>>> >>>>>> should be instantiated independently. >>>>>> >>>>>> In terms of versions/mapping/configurations Hdmi and hdmiphy are independent of each >>>>>> other. It is preferred to isolate them and maintained independently. >>>>>> >>>>>> This implementations is tested for: >>>>>> 1) Resolutions supported by exynos4 and 5 hdmi. >>>>>> 2) Runtime PM and S2R scenarions for exynos5. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't like the idea of spawning off yet another driver in here. It >>>>> adds more globals, more suspend/resume ordering issues, and more >>>>> implicit dependencies. I understand, however, that this is the Chosen >>>>> Way for the exynos driver, so I will save my rant. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I agree to it. splitting phy to a new driver will complicate the power related >>>> scenarios. But in upcoming SoC,s, Phy is changing considerably in terms of >>>> config values, mapping (i2c/platform bus) etc. Handling this diversity >>>> inside hdmi driver is complicating it with unrelated changes. >>> >>> Basically, I agree with the idea to split hdmiphy from hdmi. And it >>> seems that already existing hdmiphy i2c device is just reused and >>> hdmiphy_power_on is reorganized to hdmiphy dpms operation: even calling >>> flow of power operations is reordered. >>> >>> But I'm not sure exynos_hdmiphy_driver_register() really need to be >>> called from exynos_drm_init() of exynos_drm_drv.c. IMO, it is enough to >>> call exynos_hdmiphy_driver_register() from hdmi_probe() because hdmiphy >>> is only used from hdmi. >>> >> >> I agree with Seung-Woo. The hdmiphy is just one part of HDMI subsystem. >> > > I agree to the Seung Woo's point that hdmi-phy used to be solely accessed by > hdmi driver. But in this RFC, hdmi-phy is not called by hdmi driver > anymore. Phy > ops will be called from drm-common-hdmi platform driver along with mixer and > hdmi ops. Considering this, exynos_drm_hdmi_probe() is more proper position. > > The rational behind my implementation is that I am projecting hdmi-phy as > a device which is peer to hdmi ip and mixer. These 3 devices together makes > DRM HDMI subsystem. > > Even physically hdmi-phy doesn't seems to be a part of hdmi ip though > configurations are listed under hdmi ip user manual. It looks like a > isolated module accessed by i2c. > > Though I don't find anything wrong with Seung Woo suggestion but above > placement of hdmi-phy (parallel to hdmi and mixer) makes more sense > to me. > > Please have a another look at it and let me know your opinion. > > Another things which bothers me is registering mixer, hdmi driver inside > exynos_drm_init(). If we strictly follow the hierarchy inside drm, > exynos_drm_init() > should register drm-common-hdmi only. drm-common-hdmi should register > mixer and hdmi (or hdmi-phy as well). Yes, it makes sense. All real hw blocks for hdmi including mixer, hdmi, and hdmiphy shoulde be registered in exynos_drm_hdmi (drm-common-hdmi for exynos). Thanks and Regards, - Seung-Woo Kim > > regards, > Rahul Sharma. > >> Thanks, >> Inki Dae >> >>> Thanks and Regards, >>> - Seung-Woo Kim >>> >>>> >>>> I have tested this RFC for Runtime PM / S2R. But if we see any major roadblock >>>> we should re-factor this by explicitly calling power related callbacks >>>> of mixer, phy, >>>> hdmi drivers in a required order. We can call them from exynos-drm-hdmi plf >>>> device. AFAIR something like this is already in place in chrome-kernel. >>>> >>>>> I've made some comments below. >>>>> >>>>>> This patch is dependent on >>>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg34733.html >>>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg34861.html >>>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg34862.html >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Rahul Sharma <rahul.sharma@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> It is based on exynos-drm-next-todo branch at >>>>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/daeinki/drm-exynos.git >>>>>> >>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_drv.c | 8 + >>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_drv.h | 6 + >>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_hdmi.c | 58 ++- >>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_hdmi.h | 11 + >>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_hdmi.c | 375 ++------------------ >>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_hdmi.h | 1 - >>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_hdmiphy.c | 586 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- >>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/regs-hdmiphy.h | 61 ++++ >>>>>> 8 files changed, 738 insertions(+), 368 deletions(-) >>>>>> create mode 100644 drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/regs-hdmiphy.h >>>>>> >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>> -- >>> Seung-Woo Kim >>> Samsung Software R&D Center >>> -- >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> dri-devel mailing list >>> dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel > > > -- Seung-Woo Kim Samsung Software R&D Center -- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |