Re: [RFC 1/5] video: Add generic display panel core

Sascha Hauer
2012-09-13T11:29:54Z

On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 03:40:40AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Sascha,
>
> > > +int panel_get_modes(struct panel *panel, const struct fb_videomode
> > > **modes)
> > > +{
> > > + if (!panel->ops || !panel->ops->get_modes)
> > > + return 0;
> > > +
> > > + return panel->ops->get_modes(panel, modes);
> > > +}
> > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(panel_get_modes);
> >
> > You have seen my of videomode helper proposal. One result there was that
> > we want to have ranges for the margin/synclen fields. Does it make sense
> > to base this new panel framework on a more sophisticated internal
> > reprentation of the panel parameters?
>
> I think it does, yes. We need a common video mode structure, and the panel
> framework should use it. I'll try to rebase my patches on top of your
> proposal. Have you posted the latest version ?

V2 is the newest version. I'd like to implement ranges for the display
timings which then makes for a new common video mode structure, which
then could be used by drm and fbdev, probably with helper functions to
convert from common videomode to drm/fbdev specific variants.

>
> > This could then be converted to struct fb_videomode / struct
> > drm_display_mode as needed. This would also make it more suitable for drm
> > drivers which are not interested in struct fb_videomode.
> >
> > Related to this I suggest to change the API to be able to iterate over
> > the different modes, like:
> >
> > struct videomode *panel_get_mode(struct panel *panel, int num);
> >
> > This was we do not have to have an array of modes in memory, which may
> > be a burden for some panel drivers.
>
> I currently have mixed feelings about this. Both approaches have pros and
> cons. Iterating over the modes would be more complex for drivers that use
> panels, and would be race-prone if the modes can change at runtime (OK, this
> isn't supported by the current panel API proposal).

I just remember that the array approach was painful when I worked on an
fbdev driver some time ago. There some possible modes came from platform_data,
other modes were default modes in the driver and all had to be merged
into a single array. I don't remember the situation exactly, but it
would have been simpler if it had been a list instead of an array.

Sascha

--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |