On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 11:23, Thomas Abraham [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+ ? ?- samsung,fimd-display: The fimd controller is interfaced with the a
+ ? ? ?display device such as a lcd panel. This property should specify the
+ ? ? ?phandle of the display device node. For a display device node that
+ ? ? ?represents a RGB type display interface, it is expected to specify the
+ ? ? ?video interface timing using the following properties.
+
+ ? ? ?- lcd-htiming: Specifies the horizontal timing for the overlay. The
+ ? ? ? ?horizontal timing includes four parameters in the following order.
+
+ ? ? ? ?- horizontal back porch (in number of lcd clocks)
+ ? ? ? ?- horizontal front porch (in number of lcd clocks)
+ ? ? ? ?- hsync pulse width (in number of lcd clocks)
+ ? ? ? ?- Display panels X resolution.
+
+ ? ? ?- lcd-vtiming: Specifies the vertical timing for the overlay. The
+ ? ? ? ?vertical timing includes four parameters in the following order.
+
+ ? ? ? ?- vertical back porch (in number of lcd lines)
+ ? ? ? ?- vertical front porch (in number of lcd lines)
+ ? ? ? ?- vsync pulse width (in number of lcd clocks)
+ ? ? ? ?- Y resolution.
In this old thread, it was suggested to use a raw EDID block to supply
timings, and since then a couple of drivers in mainline (sm501fb and
fsl-diu) are doing it that way:
http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2010-February/080683.html
Shouldn't this driver be doing the same thing? If not, shouldn't
whatever interface this is adding be provided in a common helper (like
that old patch was trying to add) so it's standardized between drivers?