From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Maxime Ripard Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 08:22:08 +0000 Subject: Re: [linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 4/4] simplefb: add clock handling code Message-Id: <20140827082208.GQ15297@lukather> MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="ogqL7AgPWhApULZI" List-Id: References: <53FB46FF.1010208@redhat.com> <20140825145303.GC14763@ulmo.nvidia.com> <20140825150705.GB15297@lukather> <20140826082626.GE17263@ulmo> <20140826090035.GB17528@sirena.org.uk> <20140826091853.GI17263@ulmo> <20140826100612.GH17528@sirena.org.uk> <20140826105451.GD31124@ulmo> <1409078409.2701.17.camel@localhost> <20140827074057.GS17528@sirena.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20140827074057.GS17528@sirena.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org --ogqL7AgPWhApULZI Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 08:40:57AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 08:40:09PM +0200, Henrik Nordstr=F6m wrote: >=20 > > It is not clear to me where the hardware resources should be listed in > > DT, being it a simplefb node or part of the actual hardware device node > > properly marked as dynamic boot defaults or something else? It's > > somewhere inbetween hardware and virtual device, and somewhat volatile. > > As far as simplefb is concerned it is a hardware desription of the > > framebuffer, but for a kms driver it's no more than firmware handover of > > boottime settings and ceases to exists once the kms driver have > > reconfigured the hardware. >=20 > Is simplefb something that should be in the device tree distinctly in > the first place - shouldn't it be a subset of the functionality of the > video nodes? It's the same hardware being driven differently. Therorically, yes, but that would mean knowing beforehand what the final binding will look like, even before submitting the driver. Since the bindings are always reviewed, and most of the time changed slightly, that wouldn't work very well with the DT as a stable ABI policy I guess. Maxime --=20 Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com --ogqL7AgPWhApULZI Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJT/ZUwAAoJEBx+YmzsjxAgWhwP/0NYnLbqs8WoE+PnxubNpayr k+XAhsm6wuaia2Gjp4tuXNy1yewmS0ji9evTL0tsuIlaPwKoe92CzKTjsjvzmA7J Xb84JpRUJKOGUgQgN3F6L2pKBx4zrpWkpGlbL6mFESWvVr4yN+wz/zJnSfxn5bii DjZF0jxeGmvdSb/vfDEbtvAEn8guZUlKPGeLfQwU4pnOIkV6sxCTwyPiv05BJbh/ TFfAEofUtYGQ1Op7V7H/HZfMC8R4BJ8/DAC3ir5UUBwDYYM0jr01jI32+f9OI7J7 dYRKs9U3jhbS86R73S4bAU1EclizMZw/wzkhGpzWVfIJ78nw9ojY67EhkcPps0RB 8wFik8WoyDBgSOYoN0cylmFJmKuhZZKd/fAm9qu45Hm/82udnulbrCVuqE5j8sBB 8aGwOj2VO70i9/aGL0W/crO5I5VtwgQUp+5xNN9i2gjl0B9Uy9mfpctA2hMYgl2r J1b61EPIfz6w9MiKo0BlA/cT+EEDPobm+G8Rf4Jv+kcn1x1XhMQobT16eG5dlUJz PLdR/+cZy7FbmPbh2Il41ixPRX1iAvPnu3lZQ0/6JZbKaD3zCcZChjaLy3OEdJcT DbKMmpicDp6ZjjAOUrXYLmZdr3fbVFCvUpurbT71BgvmdCrUFtFrp4mhokETim7c bw9pBwDVCd6JzPtFp/ra =5bHy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ogqL7AgPWhApULZI-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com (Maxime Ripard) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 10:22:08 +0200 Subject: [linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 4/4] simplefb: add clock handling code In-Reply-To: <20140827074057.GS17528@sirena.org.uk> References: <53FB46FF.1010208@redhat.com> <20140825145303.GC14763@ulmo.nvidia.com> <20140825150705.GB15297@lukather> <20140826082626.GE17263@ulmo> <20140826090035.GB17528@sirena.org.uk> <20140826091853.GI17263@ulmo> <20140826100612.GH17528@sirena.org.uk> <20140826105451.GD31124@ulmo> <1409078409.2701.17.camel@localhost> <20140827074057.GS17528@sirena.org.uk> Message-ID: <20140827082208.GQ15297@lukather> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 08:40:57AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 08:40:09PM +0200, Henrik Nordstr?m wrote: > > > It is not clear to me where the hardware resources should be listed in > > DT, being it a simplefb node or part of the actual hardware device node > > properly marked as dynamic boot defaults or something else? It's > > somewhere inbetween hardware and virtual device, and somewhat volatile. > > As far as simplefb is concerned it is a hardware desription of the > > framebuffer, but for a kms driver it's no more than firmware handover of > > boottime settings and ceases to exists once the kms driver have > > reconfigured the hardware. > > Is simplefb something that should be in the device tree distinctly in > the first place - shouldn't it be a subset of the functionality of the > video nodes? It's the same hardware being driven differently. Therorically, yes, but that would mean knowing beforehand what the final binding will look like, even before submitting the driver. Since the bindings are always reviewed, and most of the time changed slightly, that wouldn't work very well with the DT as a stable ABI policy I guess. Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: