Thread (34 messages) 34 messages, 4 authors, 2024-08-19

Re: [PATCH v3 00/19] Add Freescale i.MX8qxp Display Controller support

From: Dmitry Baryshkov <hidden>
Date: 2024-07-27 20:28:06
Also in: dri-devel, imx, linux-devicetree, linux-phy, lkml

On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 03:10:21AM GMT, Sui Jingfeng wrote:
Hi,

On 7/28/24 00:39, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
quoted
quoted
Hi,

This patch series aims to add Freescale i.MX8qxp Display Controller support.

The controller is comprised of three main components that include a blit
engine for 2D graphics accelerations, display controller for display output
processing, as well as a command sequencer.

Previous patch series attempts to do that can be found at:
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/84524/

This series addresses Maxime's comments on the previous one:
a. Split the display controller into multiple internal devices.
    1) List display engine, pixel engine, interrupt controller and more as the
       controller's child devices.
    2) List display engine and pixel engine's processing units as their child
       devices.

b. Add minimal feature support.
    Only support two display pipelines with primary planes with XR24 fb,
    backed by two fetchunits.  No fetchunit dynamic allocation logic(to be done
    when necessary).

c. Use drm_dev_{enter, exit}().

Since this series changes a lot comparing to the previous one, I choose to
send it with a new patch series, not a new version.
I'm sorry, I have started reviewing v2 without noticing that there is a
v3 already.

Let me summarize my comments:

- You are using OF aliases. Are they documented and acked by DT
   maintainers?

- I generally feel that the use of so many small devices to declare
   functional blocks is an abuse of the DT. Please consider creating
   _small_ units from the driver code directly rather than going throught
   the components.
Well, I really don't think so. I don't agree.

I have checked the DTSpec[1] before type, the spec isn't define how
many is considered to be "many", and the spec isn't define to what
extent is think to be "small" as well.
Yeah. However _usually_ we are not defining DT devices for sub-device
components. So at least such decisions ought to be described and
explained in the cover letter.
[1]
https://github.com/devicetree-org/devicetree-specification/releases/tag/v0.4
-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help