outcome of DRM/KMS DT bindings session (original) (raw)

Tomi Valkeinen tomi.valkeinen at ti.com
Fri Feb 28 04:44:06 PST 2014

Hi,

A bit old thread, but I noticed this only now.

On 01/11/13 02:10, Dave Airlie wrote:

But why? why should we have separate drivers for each component of a tightly coupled SoC?

it makes no sense, having a driver node per every block in the chip isn't an advantage, it complicates things for no advantage at all. If we don't have hotplug hw removing one device shouldn't be possible this idea that removing a sub-driver should teardown the drm is crazy as well.

It depends. The SoC's components may be independent as Mark noted, and having separate device/driver may even be more or less required by the arch code. I think this is so on OMAP.

In any case, I don't see any reason to require DRM developers to do it in one way or another. One big driver may work best on one SoC, multiple small drivers may work best on the other.

The thing is, we anyway need to support multiple devices/drivers, in cases where we have, say, external i2c controlled encoder, or panels that need explicit configuration.

So we can't just escape the init time problems by requiring a single big DRM driver. And if we have the solution for the panels and external encoders, I don't see why it would be any different for SoC internal components.

The video pipeline is often composed of multiple video components, and whether they reside on the SoC, or on the board, it doesn't really make any difference.

Tomi

-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 901 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/attachments/20140228/5dd5d8b6/attachment-0001.pgp>

More information about the dri-devel mailing list