Re: [RFC v2 0/5] Common Display Framework

On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 7:37 AM, Laurent Pinchart
[off-list ref] wrote:

Hi Rob,

On Tuesday 18 December 2012 00:21:32 Rob Clark wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 11:04 PM, Dave Airlie [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

Many developers showed interest in the first RFC, and I've had the
opportunity to discuss it with most of them. I would like to thank (in
no particular order) Tomi Valkeinen for all the time he spend helping me
to draft v2, Marcus Lorentzon for his useful input during Linaro Connect
Q4 2012, and Linaro for inviting me to Connect and providing a venue to
discuss this topic.

So this might be a bit off topic but this whole CDF triggered me
looking at stuff I generally avoid:

The biggest problem I'm having currently with the whole ARM graphics
and output world is the proliferation of platform drivers for every
little thing. The whole ordering of operations with respect to things
like suspend/resume or dynamic power management is going to be a real
nightmare if there are dependencies between the drivers. How do you
enforce ordering of s/r operations between all the various components?

I tend to think that sub-devices are useful just to have a way to probe hw
which may or may not be there, since on ARM we often don't have any
alternative.. but beyond that, suspend/resume, and other life-cycle aspects,
they should really be treated as all one device. Especially to avoid
undefined suspend/resume ordering.

I tend to agree, except that I try to reuse the existing PM infrastructure
when possible to avoid reinventing the wheel. So far handling suspend/resume
ordering related to data busses in early suspend/late resume operations and
allowing the Linux PM core to handle control busses using the Linux device
tree worked pretty well.

quoted

CDF or some sort of mechanism to share panel drivers between drivers is
useful.  Keeping it within drm, is probably a good idea, if nothing else to
simplify re-use of helper fxns (like avi-infoframe stuff, for example) and
avoid dealing with merging changes across multiple trees. Treating them more
like shared libraries and less like sub-devices which can be dynamically
loaded/unloaded (ie. they should be not built as separate modules or
suspend/resumed or probed/removed independently of the master driver) is a
really good idea to avoid uncovering nasty synchronization issues later
(remove vs modeset or pageflip) or surprising userspace in bad ways.

We've tried that in V4L2 years ago and realized that the approach led to a
dead-end, especially when OF/DT got involved. With DT-based device probing,
I2C camera sensors started getting probed asynchronously to the main camera
device, as they are children of the I2C bus master. We will have similar
issues with I2C HDMI transmitters or panels, so we should be prepared for it.

What I've done to avoid that so far is that the master device
registers the drivers for it's output sub-devices before registering
it's own device.  At least this way I can control that they are probed
first.  Not the prettiest thing, but avoids even uglier problems.

On PC hardware the I2C devices are connected to an I2C master provided by the
GPU, but on embedded devices they are usually connected to an independent I2C
master. We thus can't have a single self-contained driver that controls
everything internally, and need to interface with the rest of the SoC drivers.

I agree that probing/removing devices independently of the master driver can
lead to bad surprises, which is why I want to establish clear rules in CDF
regarding what can and can't be done with display entities. Reference counting
will be one way to make sure that devices don't disappear all of a sudden.

That at least helps cover some issues.. although it doesn't really
help userspace confusion.

Anyways, with enough work perhaps all problems could be solved..
otoh, there are plenty of other important problems to solve in the
world of gpus and kms, so my preference is always not to needlessly
over-complicate CDF and instead leave some time for other things

BR,
-R

quoted

quoted

The other thing I'd like you guys to do is kill the idea of fbdev and
v4l drivers that are "shared" with the drm codebase, really just
implement fbdev and v4l on top of the drm layer, some people might
think this is some sort of maintainer thing, but really nothing else
makes sense, and having these shared display frameworks just to avoid
having using drm/kms drivers seems totally pointless. Fix the drm
fbdev emulation if an fbdev interface is needed. But creating a fourth
framework because our previous 3 frameworks didn't work out doesn't
seem like a situation I want to get behind too much.

yeah, let's not have multiple frameworks to do the same thing.. For fbdev,
it is pretty clear that it is a dead end.  For v4l2 (subdev+mcf), it is
perhaps bit more flexible when it comes to random arbitrary hw pipelines
than kms.  But to take advantage of that, your userspace isn't going to be
portable anyways, so you might as well use driver specific
properties/ioctls.  But I tend to think that is more useful for cameras.
And from userspace perspective, kms planes are less painful to use for
output than v4l2, so lets stick to drm/kms for output (and not try to add
camera/capture support to kms)..

Agreed. I've started to advocate the deprecation of FBDEV during LPC. The
positive response has motivated me to continue doing so :-) For V4L2 the
situation is a little bit different, I think V4L2 shouldn't be used for
graphics and display hardware, but it still has use cases on the video output
side for pure video devices (such as pass-through video pipelines with
embedded processing for instance). As those can use subdevices found in
display and graphics hardware, I'd like to avoid code duplication.

--
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html