From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tomi Valkeinen Subject: Re: outcome of DRM/KMS DT bindings session Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 14:44:06 +0200 Message-ID: <53108496.8000602@ti.com> References: <20131030120229.GF24559@pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1696164236==" Return-path: Received: from bear.ext.ti.com (bear.ext.ti.com [192.94.94.41]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C8DBFBC35 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 04:44:11 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dri-devel-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Errors-To: dri-devel-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org To: Dave Airlie , Sascha Hauer Cc: ksummit-2013-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Linux Fbdev development list , dri-devel List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org --===============1696164236== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="S8dvDLHgQjCsfSUok8buXDBfe2RQgsoOa" --S8dvDLHgQjCsfSUok8buXDBfe2RQgsoOa Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, A bit old thread, but I noticed this only now. On 01/11/13 02:10, Dave Airlie wrote: > But why? why should we have separate drivers for each component of a > tightly coupled SoC? >=20 > it makes no sense, having a driver node per every block in the chip > isn't an advantage, it complicates > things for no advantage at all. If we don't have hotplug hw removing > one device shouldn't be possible > this idea that removing a sub-driver should teardown the drm is crazy a= s well. It depends. The SoC's components may be independent as Mark noted, and having separate device/driver may even be more or less required by the arch code. I think this is so on OMAP. In any case, I don't see any reason to require DRM developers to do it in one way or another. One big driver may work best on one SoC, multiple small drivers may work best on the other. The thing is, we anyway need to support multiple devices/drivers, in cases where we have, say, external i2c controlled encoder, or panels that need explicit configuration. So we can't just escape the init time problems by requiring a single big DRM driver. And if we have the solution for the panels and external encoders, I don't see why it would be any different for SoC internal components. The video pipeline is often composed of multiple video components, and whether they reside on the SoC, or on the board, it doesn't really make any difference. Tomi --S8dvDLHgQjCsfSUok8buXDBfe2RQgsoOa Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJTEISWAAoJEPo9qoy8lh7164AQAKVJBHmL67WexloHCEJegg8P qb+Xvq8ZrbWIUxQWbSjQ5HKMTKuT+JTc/1S18uMb+XKgKUYX2/UPWwehB2ZjiXkz F+114DV+qdn9wWHx5CpAkaSwUG7ZmciCgqw4f7oLGk1S/2x9OLQ7J74Ay0OMC/FP x8EbCxC04cWSRIsZ+YsQEUKC4QwsQYn5UFGTvCVhfonRWdqJfnJ8Yi0iTmvZ0F1P Ah6YnvhDdg/XpsMOBAbmoblrQAK07AvuDekCqQrhF0NcoinpJs3HIiGpDtjIXgzs s3+/Clgl0XvB4gx3/qGZVkksiMgAgdev5GEdw8F+YZILgeM9Ri1hnV7DiIMi6B11 F1V8PeFO+Q9R54DZyN9KuYepCeCXf4IQ0jHEea9240GeVhTknbP13hFiLTC+aD83 P4ffzRBnjty5P/+NpAG/SGLZvOv4UyKKQhcHX2N4GgoW5QAAtnhHFdpCy4RYkzdb uFEALjilahUjIQUOa5WGL9jHKDflxmH/zfOzB5+1guVSnSHClWbL9QHbVS8yeY/R ydbGlfQ62PN/nGTGxlCDUxEtsbPASzdw1o2gbBL0s5U7TVCH3SJE057rQVr3PfD3 84Wg5We0o5UgtAo86ybj+O322LMI8tEbx3mLj2RmjkXkhQA0BGZN/7TRunkLJDnP nFwDjxZoqdmIvHN+k8OG =vDR1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --S8dvDLHgQjCsfSUok8buXDBfe2RQgsoOa-- --===============1696164236== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel --===============1696164236==--