Re: outcome of DRM/KMS DT bindings session

[Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>]

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 01:52:57PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> So we had a sessions at kernel summit to discuss the driver model and
> DT interactions for a display pipeline,
> 
> we had good attendance from a few sides and I hope to summarise the
> recommendations below,
> 
> a) Device Tree bindings
> 
> We should create a top-level virtual device binding that a top level
> driver can bind to, like alsa asoc does.
> 
> We should separate the CDF device tree model from CDF as a starting
> point and refine it outside of CDF, and produce a set of bindings that
> cover the current drivers we have, exynos, imx, tegra, msm, armada
> etc. This set of bindings should not be tied on CDF being merged or
> anything else.
> 
> Display pipelines should be modelered in the device tree, but the
> level of detail required for links between objects may be left up to
> the SoC developer, esp wrt tightly coupled SoCs.
> 
> Externally linked devices like bridges and panels should be explicitly linked.
> 
> b) Driver Model
> 
> The big thing here is that the device tree description we use should
> not dictate the driver model we use. This is the biggest thing I
> learned, so what does it mean?
> 
> We aren't required to write a device driver per device tree object.
> 
> We shouldn't be writing device drivers per device tree object.
> 
> For tightly-coupled SoCs where the blocks come from one vendor and are
> reused a lot, a top level driver should use the DT as configuration
> information source for the list of blocks it needs to initialise on
> the card, not as a list of separate drivers. There may be some
> external drivers required and the code should deal with this, like how
> alsa asoc does.
> 
> To share code between layers we should refactor it into a helper
> library not a separate driver, the kms/v4l/fbdev can use the library.
> 
> This should allow us to move forward a bit clearer esp with new
> drivers and following these recommendations, and I think porting
> current drivers to a sane model, especially exynos and imx.
> 
> Now I saw we here but I'm only going to be donating my use of a big
> stick and review abilities to making this happen, but I'm quite
> willing to enforce some of these rules going forward as I think it
> will make life easier.
> 
> After looking at some of the ordering issues we've had with x86 GPUs
> (which are really just a tightly coupled SoC) I don't want separate
> drivers all having their own init, suspend/resume paths in them as I
> know we'll have to start making special vtable entry points etc to
> solve some random ordering issues that crop up.

The DRM device has to be initialized/suspended/resumed as a whole, no
doubt about that. If that's not the case you indeed open up the door for
all kinds of ordering issues.

Still the different components can be multiple devices, just initialize
the drm device once all components are probed. Remove it again once a
component is removed. Handle suspend in the DRM device, not in
the individual component drivers. The suspend in the component drivers
would only be called after the DRM device is completely quiesced.
Similarly the resume in the component drivers would not reenable the
components, this instead would be done in the DRM device when all
components are there again.

This way all components could be proper (driver model)devices with
proper drivers without DRM even noticing that multiple components are
involved.

Side note: We have no choice anyway. All SoCs can (sometimes must)
be extended with external I2C devices. On every SoC the I2C bus master
is a separate device, so we have a multicomponent device (in the sense
of driver model) already in many cases.

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 |