[RFC V2 0/3] drm/bridge: panel and chaining
robdclark at gmail.com
Thu May 8 11:24:58 PDT 2014
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 2:41 AM, Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda at samsung.com> wrote:
> On 05/05/2014 09:52 PM, Ajay Kumar wrote:
>> This patchset is based on exynos-drm-next-todo branch of Inki Dae's tree at:
>> I have just put up Rob's and Sean's idea of chaining up the bridges
>> in code, and have implemented basic panel controls as a chained bridge.
>> This works well with ptn3460 bridge chip on exynos5250-snow board.
>> Still need to make use of standard list calls and figure out proper way
>> of deleting the bridge chain. So, this is just a rough version.
> As I understand this patchset tries to solve two things:
> 1. Implement panel as drm_bridge, to ease support for hardware chains:
> Crtc -> Encoder -> Bridge -> Panel
> 2. Add support to drm_bridge chaining, to allow software chains:
> drm_crtc -> drm_encoder -> drm_bridge -> drm_bridge,panel
> It is done using Russian doll schema, ops from the bridge calls the same
> ops from the next bridge and the next bridge ops can do the same.
> This schema means that all the bridges including the last one are seen
> from the drm core point of view as a one big drm_bridge. Additionally in
> this particular case, the first bridge (ptn3460) implements connector
> so it is hard to guess what is the location of the 2nd bridge in video
> stream chain, sometimes it is after the connector, sometimes before.
> All this is quite confusing.
> But if you look at the bridge from upstream video interface point of
> view it is just a panel, edp panel in case of ptn3460, ie ptn3460 on its
> video input side acts as a panel. On the output side it expects a panel,
> lvds panel in this case.
tbh, this is mostly about what we call it. Perhaps "bridge" isn't the
best name.. I wouldn't object to changing it.
But my thinking was to leave in drm_panel_funcs things that are just
needed by the connector (get_modes().. and maybe some day we need
detect/etc). Then leave everything else in drm_bridge_funcs. A panel
could (if needed) implement both interfaces.
That is basically the same as what you are proposing, but without
renaming bridge to panel ;-)
> So why not implement ptn3460 bridge as drm_panel which internally uses
> another drm_panel. With this approach everything fits much better.
> You do not need those (pre|post)_(enable|disable) calls, you do not need
> to implement connector in the bridge and you have a driver following
> linux driver model. And no single bit changed in drm core.
> I have implemented this way DSI/LVDS bridge, it was sent as RFC .
> It was not accepted as Inki preferred drm_bridge but as I see the
> problems with drm_bridges I have decide to attract attention to much
> more cleaner solution.
> : http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.devicetree/61559
> : http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.samsung-soc/27044
>> Ajay Kumar (3):
>> [RFC V2 1/3] drm: implement chaining of drm bridges
>> [RFC V2 2/3] drm/bridge: add a dummy panel driver to support lvds bridges
>> [RFC V2 3/3] drm/bridge: ptn3460: support bridge chaining
>> .../bindings/drm/bridge/bridge_panel.txt | 45 ++++
>> drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/Kconfig | 6 +
>> drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/Makefile | 1 +
>> drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/bridge_panel.c | 240 +++++++++++++++++++++
>> drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ptn3460.c | 21 +-
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c | 13 +-
>> include/drm/bridge/bridge_panel.h | 37 ++++
>> include/drm/drm_crtc.h | 2 +
>> 8 files changed, 360 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/drm/bridge/bridge_panel.txt
>> create mode 100644 drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/bridge_panel.c
>> create mode 100644 include/drm/bridge/bridge_panel.h
More information about the dri-devel