[PATCH/RFC v3 00/19] Common Display Framework
tomi.valkeinen at ti.com
Mon Sep 30 06:48:54 PDT 2013
On 09/08/13 20:14, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi everybody,
> Here's the third RFC of the Common Display Framework.
I've been trying to adapt the latest CDF RFC for OMAP. I'm trying to gather
some notes here about what I've discovered or how I see things. Some of these I
have mentioned earlier, but I'm trying to collect them here nevertheless.
I do have my branch with working DPI panel, TFP410 encoder, DVI-connector and
DSI command mode panel drivers, and modifications to make omapdss work with
CDF. However, it's such a big hack, that I'm not going to post it. I hope I
will have time to work on it to get something publishable to have something
more concrete to present. But for the time being I have to move to other tasks
for a while, so I thought I'd better post some comments when I still remember
something about this.
Using Linux buses for DBI/DSI
I still don't see how it would work. I've covered this multiple times in
previous posts so I'm not going into more details now.
I implemented DSI (just command mode for now) as a video bus but with bunch of
extra ops for sending the control messages.
It may be that I just don't get how things are supposed to work with the RFC's
ops, but I couldn't figure out how to use it in practice. I tried it for a few
days, but got nowhere, and I then went with the proven model that's used in
omapdss, where display entities handle calling the ops of the upstream
That's not to say the RFC's model doesn't work. I just didn't figure it out.
And I guess it was more difficult to understand how to use it as the controller
stuff is not implemented yet.
It would be good to have a bit more complex cases in the RFC, like changing and
verifying videomodes, fetching them via EDID, etc.
I think changing the model from single-input & single output to multiple inputs
and outputs increases the difficulty of the implementation considerably. That's
not a complaint as such, just an observation. I do think multiple inputs &
outputs is a good feature. Then again, all the use cases I have only have
single input/output, so I've been wondering if there's some middle road, in
which we somehow allow multiple inputs & outputs, but only implement the
support for single input & output.
I've cut the corners in my tests by just looking at a single enabled input or
output from an entity, and ignoring the rest (which I don't have in my use
The model currently only represents connections between entities. With multiple
inputs & outputs I think it's important to maintain also connections inside the
entity. Say, we have an entity with two inputs and two outputs. If one output
is enabled, which one of the inputs needs to be enabled and configured also?
The current model doesn't give any solution to that.
I haven't implemented this, as in my use cases I have just single inputs and
outputs, so I can follow the pipeline trivially.
If I understand the RFC correctly, there's a "central" entity that manages all
other entities connected to it. This central entity would normally be the
display controller. I don't like this model, as it makes it difficult or
impossible to manage situations where an entity is connected to two display
controllers (even if only one of the display controllers would be connected at
a time). It also makes this one display entity fundamentally different from the
others, which I don't like.
I think all the display entities should be similar. They would all register
themselves to the CDF framework, which in turn would be used by somebody. This
somebody could be the display controller driver, which is more or less how I've
Using media_entity and media_pad fits quite well for CDF, but... It is quite
cumbersome to use. The constant switching between media_entity and
display_entity needs quite a lot of code in total, as it has to be done almost
And somehow I'd really like to combine the entity and port into one struct so
that it would be possible to just do:
src->ops->foo(src, srcport, ...);
One reason is that the latter is more verbose (not only the call, you also need
to get srcport from somewhere), but also that as far as the caller is
concerned, there's no reason to manage the entity and the port as separate
things. You just want a particular video source/sink to do something, and
whether that source/sink is port 5 of entity foo is irrelevant.
The callee, of course, needs to check which port is being operated. However,
if, say, 90% of the display entities have just one input and one output port,
the port parameter can be ignored for those entities, simplifying the code.
And while media_entity can be embedded into display_entity, media_pad and
media_link cannot be embedded into anything. This is somewhat vague as I don't
quite remember what my reason for needing the feature was, but I had some need
for display_link or display_pad, to add some CDF related entries, which can't
be done except by modifying the media_link or media_pad themselves.
DT data & platform data
I think the V4L2 style port/endpoint description in DT data should work well. I
don't see a need for specifying the remote-endpoint in the upstream entity, but
then again, it doesn't hurt either.
The description does get pretty verbose, though, but I guess that can't be
Describing similar things in the platform data works fine too. The RFC,
however, contained somewhat lacking platform data examples which had to be
extended to work with, for example, multiple instances of the same display
entity. Also, the RFC relied on the central entity to parse the platform data,
and in my model each display entity has its own platform data.
So many of the comments above are somewhat gut-feelings. I don't have concrete
evidence that my ideas are better, as I haven't been able to finalize the code
(well, and the RFC is missing important things like the controller).
I think there are areas where my model and the RFC are similar. I think one
step would be to identify those parts, and perhaps have those parts as separate
pieces of code. Say, the DT and platform data parts might be such that we could
have display-of.c and display-pdata.c, having support code which works for the
RFC and my model.
This would make it easier to maintain and improve both versions, to see how
they evolve and what are the pros and cons with both models. But this is just a
thought, I'm not sure how much such code there would actually be.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 901 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the dri-devel