Re: outcome of DRM/KMS DT bindings session

[Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1456 bytes --]

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?
> 
> 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 as 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



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 901 bytes --]