Re: [PATCH 1/2] of: add helper to parse display specs

[Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>]

On 10/01/2012 01:16 PM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
> On 10/1/2012 6:53 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 09/24/2012 09:35 AM, Steffen Trumtrar wrote:
>>> Parse a display-node with timings and hardware-specs from devictree.
>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/video/display b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/video/display
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 0000000..722766a
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/video/display
>>
>> This should be display.txt.
>>
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,208 @@
>>> +display bindings
>>> +==================
>>> +
>>> +display-node
>>> +------------
>>
>> I'm not personally convinced about the direction this is going. While I
>> think it's reasonable to define DT bindings for displays, and DT
>> bindings for display modes, I'm not sure that it's reasonable to couple
>> them together into a single binding.
>>
>> I think creating a well-defined timing binding first will be much
>> simpler than doing so within the context of a display binding; the
>> scope/content of a general display binding seems much less well-defined
>> to me at least, for reasons I mentioned before.
>>
>>> +required properties:
>>> + - none
>>> +
>>> +optional properties:
>>> + - default-timing: the default timing value
>>> + - width-mm, height-mm: Display dimensions in mm
>>
>>> + - hsync-active-high (bool): Hsync pulse is active high
>>> + - vsync-active-high (bool): Vsync pulse is active high
>>
>> At least those two properties should exist in the display timing instead
>> (or perhaps as well). There are certainly cases where different similar
>> display modes are differentiated by hsync/vsync polarity more than
>> anything else. This is probably more likely with analog display
>> connectors than digital, but I see no reason why a DT binding for
>> display timing shouldn't cover both.
>>
>>> + - de-active-high (bool): Data-Enable pulse is active high
>>> + - pixelclk-inverted (bool): pixelclock is inverted
>>
>>> + - pixel-per-clk
>>
>> pixel-per-clk is probably something that should either be part of the
>> timing definition, or something computed internally to the display
>> driver based on rules for the signal type, rather than something
>> represented in DT.
>>
>> The above comment assumes this property is intended to represent DVI's
>> requirement for pixel clock doubling for low-pixel-clock-rate modes. If
>> it's something to do with e.g. a single-data-rate vs. double-data-rate
>> property of the underlying physical connection, that's most likely
>> something that should be defined in a binding specific to e.g. LVDS,
>> rather than something generic.
>>
>>> + - link-width: number of channels (e.g. LVDS)
>>> + - bpp: bits-per-pixel
>>> +
>>> +timings-subnode
>>> +---------------
>>> +
>>> +required properties:
>>> +subnodes that specify
>>> + - hactive, vactive: Display resolution
>>> + - hfront-porch, hback-porch, hsync-len: Horizontal Display timing parameters
>>> +   in pixels
>>> +   vfront-porch, vback-porch, vsync-len: Vertical display timing parameters in
>>> +   lines
>>> + - clock: displayclock in Hz
>>> +
>>> +There are different ways of describing a display and its capabilities. The devicetree
>>> +representation corresponds to the one commonly found in datasheets for displays.
>>> +The description of the display and its timing is split in two parts: first the display
>>> +properties like size in mm and (optionally) multiple subnodes with the supported timings.
>>> +If a display supports multiple signal timings, the default-timing can be specified.
>>> +
>>> +Example:
>>> +
>>> +	display@0 {
>>> +		width-mm = <800>;
>>> +		height-mm = <480>;
>>> +		default-timing = <&timing0>;
>>> +		timings {
>>> +			timing0: timing@0 {
>>
>> If you're going to use a unit address ("@0") to ensure that node names
>> are unique (which is not mandatory), then each node also needs a reg
>> property with matching value, and #address-cells/#size-cells in the
>> parent. Instead, you could name the nodes something unique based on the
>> mode name to avoid this, e.g. 1080p24 { ... }.
> 
> 
> I'm concerned that numbered nodes are being misused as arrays.
> 
> It's easy to make real arrays by including multiple cells in the value
> of each timing parameter, and easy to choose a cell by saying the array
> index instead of using the phandle.

In this case though, arrays don't work out so well in my opinion:

We want to describe a set of unrelated display modes that the display
can handle. These are logically separate entities. I don't think
combining the values that represent say 5 different modes into a single
set of properties really makes sense here; a separate node or property
per display mode really does make sense because they're separate objects.

Related, each display timing parameter (e.g. hsync length, position,
...) has a range, so min/typical/max values. These are already
represented as a 3-cell property as I believe you're proposing.
Combining that with a cell that represents n different modes in a single
array seems like it'd end up with something rather hard to read, at
least for humans even if it would be admittedly trivial for a CPU.