Re: [RFR 2/2] drm/panel: Add simple panel support

On 17/10/13 15:17, Laurent Pinchart wrote:

Hi Tomi,

On Thursday 17 October 2013 14:59:41 Tomi Valkeinen wrote:

quoted

On 17/10/13 14:51, Laurent Pinchart wrote:

quoted

quoted

I'm not sure if there's a specific need for the port or endpoint nodes
in cases like the above. Even if we have common properties describing
the endpoint, I guess they could just be in the parent node.

panel {
	remote = <&dc>;
	common-video-property = <asd>;
};

The above would imply one port and one endpoint. Would that work? If we
had a function like parse_endpoint(node), we could just point it to
either a real endpoint node, or to the device's node.

You reference the display controller here, not a specific display
controller output. Don't most display controllers have several outputs ?

Sure. Then the display controller could have more verbose description.
But the panel could still have what I wrote above, except the 'remote'
property would point to a real endpoint node inside the dispc node, not
to the dispc node.

This would, of course, need some extra code to handle the different
cases, but just from DT point of view, I think all the relevant
information is there.

There's many ways to describe the same information in DT. While we could have 
DT bindings that use different descriptions for different devices and still 
support all of them in our code, why should we opt for that option that will 
make the implementation much more complex when we can describe connections in 
a simple and generic way ?

My suggestion was simple and generic. I'm not proposing per-device
custom bindings.

My point was, if we can describe the connections as I described above,
which to me sounds possible, we can simplify the panel DT data for 99.9%
of the cases.

To me, the first of these looks much nicer:

panel {
	remote = <&remote-endpoint>;
	common-video-property = <asd>;
};

panel {
	port {
		endpoint {
			remote = <&remote-endpoint>;
			common-video-property = <asd>;
		};
	};
};

If that can be supported in the SW by adding complexity to a few
functions, and it covers practically all the panels, isn't it worth it?

Note that I have not tried this, so I don't know if there are issues.
It's just a thought. Even if there's need for a endpoint node, perhaps
the port node can be made optional.

 Tomi