On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 05:18:11PM +0900, Alex Courbot wrote: > Hi Thierry, > > On Monday 21 January 2013 15:49:28 Thierry Reding wrote: > > Eventually this should all be covered by the CDF, but since that's not > > ready yet we want something ad-hoc to get the hardware supported. As > > such I would like to see this go into some sort of minimalistic, Tegra- > > specific display/panel framework. I'd prefer to keep the pwm-backlight > > driver as simple and generic as possible, that is, a driver for a PWM- > > controlled backlight. > > > > Another advantage of moving this into a sort of display framework is > > that it may help in defining the requirements for a CDF and that moving > > the code to the CDF should be easier once it is done. > > > > Last but not least, abstracting away the panel allows other things such > > as physical dimensions and display modes to be properly encapsulated. I > > think that power-on/off timing requirements for panels also belong to > > this set since they are usually specific to a given panel. > > > > Maybe adding these drivers to tegra-drm for now would be a good option. > > That way the corresponding glue can be added without a need for inter- > > tree dependencies. > > IIRC (because that was a while ago already) having a Tegra-only display > framework is exactly what we wanted to avoid in the first place. This series > does nothing but leverage the callbacks mechanism that already exists in pwm- > backlight and make it available to DT systems. If we start making a Tegra- > specific solution, then other architectures will have to reinvent the wheel > again. I really don't think we want to go that way. > > These patches only makes slight changes to pwm_bl.c and do not extend its > capabilities. I agree that a suitable solution will require the CDF, but by > the meantime, let's go for the practical route instead of repeating the same > mistakes (i.e. architecture-specific frameworks) again. > > There are certainly better ways to do this, but I'm not convinced at all that > a Tegra-only solution is one of them. Well, your proposal is a Tegra-only solution as well. Anything we come up with now will be Tegra-only because it will eventually be integrated with the CDF. Trying to come up with something generic would be counter-productive. CDF *is* the generic solution. All we would be doing is add a competing framework. Thierry
Attachment:
pgpGn3pmBlYVx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
