[PATCH v3 06/14] Documentation: drm/bridge: add document for analogix_dp
ykk at rock-chips.com
Tue Aug 25 02:41:19 PDT 2015
在 2015/8/25 17:12, Thierry Reding 写道:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 09:48:27AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 7:57 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
>> <linux at arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 06:23:14PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Yakir Yang <ykk at rock-chips.com> wrote:
>>>>> + -analogix,color-depth:
>>>>> + number of bits per colour component.
>>>>> + COLOR_6 = 0, COLOR_8 = 1, COLOR_10 = 2, COLOR_12 = 3
>>>> This seems pretty generic. Just use 6, 8, 10, or 12 for values. And
>>>> drop the vendor prefix.
>>> Please think about this some more. What does "color-depth" mean? Does it
>>> mean the number of bits per colour _component_, or does it mean the total
>>> number of bits to represent a particular colour. It's confusing as it
>> Then "component-color-bpp" perhaps?
> There should be no need to have this in DT at all. The BPC is a property
> of the attached panel and it should come from the panel (either the
> panel driver or parsed from EDID if available).
Actually I have send an email about this one to you in version 2, just
past from that email:
"samsung,color_space" and "samsung,color-depth"
The drm_display_info's color_formats and bpc indicate the monitor
display ability, but
the edp driver could not take it as input video format directly.
For example, with my DP TV I would found "RGB444 & YCRCB422 & & YCRCB444"
support in drm_display_info.color_formats and 16bit bpc support, but
driver could only output RGB & ITU formats, so finally
config crtc to RGBaaa 10bpc mode.
In this sutiation, the analogix_dp core driver would pazzled by the
can't chose the right color_space and bpc.
And this is the place that confused me, wish you could give some ideas
about this one :-)
>>> When we adopted the graph bindings for iMX DRM, I thought exactly at that
>>> time "it would be nice if this could become the standard for binding DRM
>>> components together" but I don't have the authority from either the DT
>>> perspective or the DRM perspective to mandate that. Neither does anyone
>>> else. That's the _real_ problem here.
>>> I've seen several DRM bindings go by which don't use the of-graph stuff,
>>> which means that they'll never be compatible with generic components
>>> which do use the of-graph stuff.
>> It goes beyond bindings IMO. The use of the component framework or not
>> has been at the whim of driver writers as well. It is either used or
>> private APIs are created. I'm using components and my need for it
>> boils down to passing the struct drm_device pointer to the encoder.
>> Other components like panels and bridges have different ways to attach
>> to the DRM driver.
> I certainly support unification, but it needs to be reasonable. There
> are cases where a different structure for the binding work better than
> another and I think this always needs to be evaluated on a case by case
> Because of that I think it makes sense to make all these framework bits
> opt-in, otherwise we could easily end up in a situation where drivers
> have to be rearchitected (or even DT bindings altered!) in order to be
> able to reuse code.
More information about the dri-devel