From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@bootlin.com>
To: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: backlight - chicken and egg challenge
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 09:27:24 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180910092724.4caa91de@bbrezillon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180908201755.GA15354@ravnborg.org>
Hi Sam,
On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 22:17:55 +0200
Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org> wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> When working on the DRM driver for Atmel LCDC the first approach
> was to use a MFD driver, that had two sub-drivers:
> - PWM dirver
> - DRM driver
>
> Feedback was that the PWM feature was too small to warrant a MFD driver.
> (There was no consencus on this, but I anyway went ahead).
>
> So the new approch is much simpler (from a code point of view):
> DRM Driver that has one sub-driver
> - PWM driver
> The PWM driver uses registers in the same memory
> range as the DRM driver, so the two drivers uses
> the same regmap.
>
> The PWM driver is located in pwm/
> The DRM driver is located in gpu/drm/atmel
> The DRM driver uses platform_device_register_data() to
> register the sub-device/driver.
> I have yet to see it work, but I think this is the right way
> to do it.
>
> This all looked fine until reality kicked in.
>
>
> There is the following dependency chain (=> depends on):
> DRM Driver => Panel => Backlight => PWM => DRM Driver
>
> The DRM Driver rely indirectly on the DRM driver, which it not OK.
>
> So the open question is how to fix this dependency challenge?
>
> 1) Drop the generic backlight driver and implement all pwm/backlight
> handling in the driver.
> 2) Re-introduce the MFD driver.
> 3) ?
>
> Any good ideas?
I keep thinking #2 is the cleanest option. The fact is, the LCDC IP is
actually providing 2 functionalities: a PWM (most of the time driving a
backlight) and a display controller. Really, I don't see why
representing this IP as an MFD is not appropriate, especially since the
HLCDC MFD driver is already in place and can easily be re-used.
What should be adjusted though, is the need for 2 sub-nodes: I think you
can just use a single node and declare #pwm-cells at the top level.
Regards,
Boris
Regards,
Boris
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-09-10 7:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-09-08 20:17 backlight - chicken and egg challenge Sam Ravnborg
2018-09-08 21:23 ` Daniel Vetter
2018-09-08 22:38 ` Sam Ravnborg
2018-09-10 7:27 ` Boris Brezillon [this message]
2018-09-11 12:48 ` Liviu Dudau
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180910092724.4caa91de@bbrezillon \
--to=boris.brezillon@bootlin.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=sam@ravnborg.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox