Hello Sean, Thanks for reviewing the patch.
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Sean Paul seanpaul@chromium.org wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Leela Krishna Amudala l.krishna@samsung.com wrote:
The Exynos DP transmitter is treated as an end entity in the display pipeline and made this RFC patch compliant with CDF.
Any suggestions are welcome.
A few comments below. It's hard to get too much of an appreciation for what you're trying to do since a bunch of the interesting parts are stubbed out.
Signed-off-by: Leela Krishna Amudala l.krishna@samsung.com
drivers/video/display/display-core.c | 2 +- drivers/video/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c | 88 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ drivers/video/exynos/exynos_dp_core.h | 6 +++ 3 files changed, 95 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/video/display/display-core.c b/drivers/video/display/display-core.c index 5f8be30..dbad7e9 100644 --- a/drivers/video/display/display-core.c +++ b/drivers/video/display/display-core.c @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ #include <linux/list.h> #include <linux/module.h> #include <linux/mutex.h> -#include <linux/videomode.h> +#include <video/videomode.h>
#include <video/display.h>
diff --git a/drivers/video/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c b/drivers/video/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c index 4ef18e2..0f8de27b 100644 --- a/drivers/video/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c +++ b/drivers/video/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c @@ -23,6 +23,9 @@ #include <video/exynos_dp.h>
#include "exynos_dp_core.h" +#include <video/videomode.h> +#include <video/display.h> +#define to_panel(p) container_of(p, struct exynos_dp_device, entity)
static int exynos_dp_init_dp(struct exynos_dp_device *dp) { @@ -1033,6 +1036,81 @@ static void exynos_dp_phy_exit(struct exynos_dp_device *dp) } #endif /* CONFIG_OF */
+static int exynos_dp_power_on(struct exynos_dp_device *dp) +{
struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(dp->dev);struct exynos_dp_platdata *pdata = pdev->dev.platform_data;if (dp->dev->of_node) {if (dp->phy_addr)exynos_dp_phy_init(dp);} else {if (pdata->phy_init)pdata->phy_init();}clk_prepare_enable(dp->clock);exynos_dp_init_dp(dp);enable_irq(dp->irq);return 0;+}
+static int dp_set_state(struct display_entity *entity,
enum display_entity_state state)+{
struct exynos_dp_device *dp = to_panel(entity);struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(dp->dev);int ret = 0;switch (state) {case DISPLAY_ENTITY_STATE_OFF:case DISPLAY_ENTITY_STATE_STANDBY:ret = exynos_dp_remove(pdev);This is incorrect, that is the module remove function. It seems like it works right now since there's nothing permanent happening (like platform data being freed), but there's no guarantee that this will remain like that in the future.
IMO, you should factor out the common bits from remove and suspend into a new function which is called from all three.
Yes, I used the module remove function because it works fine with its current state. I'll factor out the common things and will create a common function.
break;case DISPLAY_ENTITY_STATE_ON:ret = exynos_dp_power_on(dp);break;}return ret;+}
+static int dp_get_modes(struct display_entity *entity,
const struct videomode **modes)+{
/* Rework has to be done here*/return 1;Returning 1 here is pretty risky since you didn't actually allocate or populate a mode. I'm surprised this isn't causing some weird side-effects for you.
This current code is a dummy function, That is the reason to mention "Rework has to be done here" The current DP driver is not receiving any video mode properties. So I have to think out how to get the same and will do the implementation.
+}
+static int dp_get_size(struct display_entity *entity,
unsigned int *width, unsigned int *height)+{
struct exynos_dp_device *dp = to_panel(entity);struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(dp->dev);/*getting pdata in older way, rework has to be done here toparse it from dt node */struct exynos_dp_platdata *pdata = pdev->dev.platform_data;/*Rework has to be done here */*width = 1280;*height = 800;return 0;+}
+static int dp_update(struct display_entity *entity,
void (*callback)(int, void *), void *data)+{
/*Rework has to be done here*/return 0;+}
+static const struct display_entity_control_ops dp_control_ops = {
.set_state = dp_set_state,.get_modes = dp_get_modes,.get_size = dp_get_size,.update = dp_update,+};
static int exynos_dp_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) { struct resource *res; @@ -1111,6 +1189,16 @@ static int exynos_dp_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
platform_set_drvdata(pdev, dp);
/* setup panel entity */dp->entity.dev = &pdev->dev;dp->entity.release = exynos_dp_remove;dp->entity.ops = &dp_control_ops;ret = display_entity_register(&dp->entity);if (ret < 0) {pr_err("failed to register display entity\n");return ret;} return 0;}
diff --git a/drivers/video/exynos/exynos_dp_core.h b/drivers/video/exynos/exynos_dp_core.h index 6c567bb..eb18c10 100644 --- a/drivers/video/exynos/exynos_dp_core.h +++ b/drivers/video/exynos/exynos_dp_core.h @@ -13,6 +13,8 @@ #ifndef _EXYNOS_DP_CORE_H #define _EXYNOS_DP_CORE_H
+#include <video/display.h>
enum dp_irq_type { DP_IRQ_TYPE_HP_CABLE_IN, DP_IRQ_TYPE_HP_CABLE_OUT, @@ -42,6 +44,7 @@ struct exynos_dp_device { struct video_info *video_info; struct link_train link_train; struct work_struct hotplug_work;
struct display_entity entity;};
/* exynos_dp_reg.c */ @@ -133,6 +136,9 @@ void exynos_dp_config_video_slave_mode(struct exynos_dp_device *dp); void exynos_dp_enable_scrambling(struct exynos_dp_device *dp); void exynos_dp_disable_scrambling(struct exynos_dp_device *dp);
+static int exynos_dp_power_on(struct exynos_dp_device *dp); +static int exynos_dp_remove(struct platform_device *pdev);
You can just move the functions around the file as needed and avoid the forward declaration.
Yes accepted, will do this.
Best Wishes, Leela Krishna Amudala.
/* I2C EDID Chip ID, Slave Address */ #define I2C_EDID_DEVICE_ADDR 0x50
#define I2C_E_EDID_DEVICE_ADDR 0x30
1.8.0
dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel