[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/4] drm/i915: Add more dev ops for MIPI sub encoder
shobhit.kumar at intel.com
Thu Oct 24 14:13:05 CEST 2013
On 10/24/2013 01:54 PM, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2013, Shobhit Kumar <shobhit.kumar at intel.com> wrote:
>> On 10/23/2013 07:52 PM, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>> So I think let's keep trying to find the right abstractions to separate
>>> the DSI core and the panel drivers, make it possible to support several
>>> panels with one driver, and make it possible to have independent drivers
>>> for panels that don't fit the assumptions of the generic panel driver.
>>> Does that conflict with your goals? Are we in agreement here?
>> Definetely we are in agreement and perfectly aligns with my goals.
> That's relieving, I'm happy we're on the same page now. :)
Me too :)
>> But is it okay to work towards pushing sub-encoder based design for
>> immidiate short term and then work to convert on drm_bridge because I
>> can see that drm_bridge callbacks will need additions defintely and it
>> might take some time to get that done. In the meantime can we push
>> current driver with already suggested changes to get atleast a working
>> base ?
> I'm okay with this. Daniel is pushing for drm_bridge, and I'm also
> optimistic about that, but perhaps we have to see what we really need
> first. The current sub-encoder model is more flexible for that in the
> short term.
> However I, and others, will need to know where we are heading, so please
> do pay attention to splitting up the patches and explaining why they are
> needed. Sometimes it's helpful to provide draft/RFC patches on top just
> for that.
I will push updated smaller patches with clear reasoning for them.
> Finally, I am glad you're contributing directly to upstream now. It
> makes a huge difference in the long run.
Yeah, I wanted to do earlier but sometimes its all matter of bandwidth
and priorities. Hopefully I will be able to continue to do so, now that
I have started.
Thanks for all your inputs.
More information about the Intel-gfx