Re: [PATCH 3/4] OMAPDSS: panel-sharp-ls037v7dw01: add device tree support

Tony Lindgren
2014-05-14T16:02:17Z

* Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com> [140513 23:20]:
> On 13/05/14 18:25, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>
> > Well ideally the revision info for a device would come from device
> > revision registers rather using the SoC revision. In the DSS case when
> > the SoC revision is needed by a device it maybe it can be deciphered
> > from a combination of compatible flag and the clock rate for example?
>
> I've been trying that. The HW guys didn't bother to update the DSS
> revision registers, so they are useless. And, for example, the OMAP3 ES
> difference is only about bitfield widths in two registers.
>
> I tried writing "too long" value to the register on the earlier ES
> version, hoping that the extra bits would be kept at zero, but that
> wasn't the case. So I just don't see a way to detect this from the DSS's
> point of view.
>
> >>> Do you object to the compatible string remapping as such, or just that
> >>> it's in arch/arm/mach-omap2?
> >
> > It's something I'd rather not have under mach-omap2 as that means that
> > I may need to deal with it too to some extent. And I don't think we
> > need to do such remapping, we should be able to use the panel compatible
> > strings as they are just fine. It should be possible to figure out from
> > the device tree properties what controller the panel belongs to. Or
> > for now, use the panel registration to figure out what display controller
> > it belongs to.
> >
> >>> I guess nothing prevents me from moving it to drivers/, and having some
> >>> early-ish initcall doing the job.
> >
> > /me likes this idea if you need it at all. Stuff like this tends to stay
> > and spread, so I'd rather not do the remapping of compatible strings at
> > all.
>
> Yep. I'll look to this. Thinking about it now, it kind of makes more
> sense to have it in the omapdss's directory.

OK thanks.

> >> So, since we can change the kernel later but not the DTS, I agree with
> >> you that the remapping is the least bad of our options.
> >
> > Yes the binding for the panel should just describe the panel so it can be
> > used with whatever display controller. But we do have quite a few buses
> > probing devices. How about set up the panel probing the same way?
>
> > For the panels on display controller, just do the usual
> > for_each_child_of_node(pdev->dev.of_node, child) and probe them?
> >
> > It seems the remapping of compatible strings is not needed in this
> > as we're only picking up panels that are children of the display
> > controller.
>
> The panels (or display encoders) are not (usually) children of the
> display controller. They are children of their respective control bus.
> Say, an i2c panel is a child of i2c bus. If there's no control bus, like
> is the case with the sharp panel, it's a platform device.

OK

> The video paths of the panels and encoders are connected using the v4l2
> style ports/endpoints. We can use those to see what display controller a
> panel is connected to, but only after the panel driver has already
> probed. We don't have control for the actual probing, as that happens
> with whatever the control bus is for the display component.

OK. So with generic panels, you can just let the panels probe with
the right compatible flag then and let the ports/endpoints registration
to figure out if the panel is usable for the display controller in
question.

> >>>>> I'm not sure what it would give us to try to be compatible with
> >>>>> simple-panel.txt. The simple-panel bindings won't probably be compatible
> >>>>> with the future common display drivers in any case, as the simple-panel
> >>>>> binding is just too limited and doesn't describe the hardware fully.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hmm what else does a panel need where the existing binding cannot be
> >>>> extended?
> >>>
> >>> The existing simple-panel binding doesn't describe the connections of
> >>> the panel, i.e. its video input. I guess it can be extended, but I don't
> >>> see what the benefit is of trying to create new panel bindings
> >>> compatible with the simple-panel bindings. As I see, the simple-panel
> >>> bindings work only with very limited use cases, where the drivers make
> >>> assumptions. Simple panel bindings cannot be used with omapdss, nor can
> >>> it be used with the future common display framework.
> >
> > Well it seems at least the reset and enable pin standard from that
> > binding can be kept.
>
> Only enable gpio there. But even that's vague. Do you turn on the power
> before or after setting the enable gpio? How long delay should be
> between the power and the gpio? Different panels have different rules
> for the power-up.

Sure, it's a complex problem. But for the enable gpio..

Maybe the enable GPIO should be treated as a regulator? That would allow
specifying first the source regulator startup delay, and then the
panel has it's own startup delay.

> >>> But I'm not really familiar with using extending current bindings, and
> >>> making new bindings compatible with old ones. Can you explain why it'd
> >>> be good to have the sharp panel bindings compatible with simple-panel?
> >>> In what kind of scenario would it be used?
> >
> > Ideally the panel binding just describes the panel and it should not
> > matter which display controller it is a child of.
>
> Yes, but that means the panel bindings need to have enough information
> so that all display controllers can use it. Simple-panel bindings do not
> have enough information. The simple-panel bindings do not have
> information about the video bus input, and it doesn't even have
> information about the resolution or bitdepth of the panel.

Some of that you can hide into the panel driver based on the compatible
flag. So why not already do something like this in the .dts files
instead of the remapping:

compatible = "sharp,ls037v7dw01-omap-dss", "sharp,ls037v7dw01";

And drivers/video/fbdev/omap2/displays-new/panel-sharp-ls037v7dw01.c
would only claim to be compatible with "sharp,ls037v7dw01-omap-dss".

Then when the common panel framework is available, you can stop
parsing sharp,ls037v7dw01-omap-dss but the .dts files don't need
to be changed and it's fine to keep "sharp,ls037v7dw01-omap-dss"
in the .dts files.

> So I'm still asking, if we create sharp bindings that use the same
> properties as the simple-panel bindings, and define that sharp panel is
> compatible with simple-panel, what kind of scenario in practice would it
> be used in?

Well with the above example, just by dss with "sharp,ls037v7dw01-omap-dss"
until some other SoC notices it can use the GPIO parts of the panel
code at least :)

> Would the scenario be some other OS, that doesn't have a driver for the
> sharp panel, but has a driver for the simple-panel? That would only work
> if the sharp panel hardware is setup so that only the enable gpio is
> needed, so that quite a narrow definition of "compatible".

That's where we can use the compatible flags and just avoid parsing
the generic compatible flag unless some common framework is available.

> Or is there some other scenario in which it could be used?

I guess other OS or other SoC with a different display controller
but the same panel.

Regards,

Tony