Thread (33 messages) 33 messages, 7 authors, 2012-08-24

Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] Runtime Interpreted Power Sequences

From: Alex Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>
Date: 2012-08-21 08:51:39
Also in: linux-devicetree, linux-fbdev, linux-tegra

On Tuesday 21 August 2012 16:33:30 Thierry Reding wrote:
I suppose power sequences aren't needed if you have a specific driver
for every panel out there. However that also means that you'd have to
write drivers for literally every panel that requires support. In the
end this will just result in discussion down the road how the common
functionality can be refactored and we may end up with power sequences
again.

Also as you mentioned, power sequences are useful for a number of other
use-cases. Without power sequences you'll have to potentially create
extra frameworks tha reimplement parts of the power sequence code for
their specific hardware needs.
Yes, I can imagine what a mess it would become it we had one driver for every 
panel out there which sole purpose would be to define power sequences over more 
generic drivers. That reassures me about the usefulness of this work.

Another (small) benefit of power sequences over specific drivers is that being 
defined in the DT, they would allow an old kernel to operate a newer device if 
the base driver is the same.

Alex.
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help