On Thursday 15 November 2012 18:03:59 Grant Likely wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 17:00:57 +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Thursday 15 November 2012 15:47:53 Grant Likely wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:23:52 +0100, Steffen Trumtrar wrote:
Add display_timing structure and the according helper functions. This allows the description of a display via its supported timing parameters.
Every timing parameter can be specified as a single value or a range <min typ max>.
Also, add helper functions to convert from display timings to a generic videomode structure. This videomode can then be converted to the corresponding subsystem mode representation (e.g. fb_videomode).
Signed-off-by: Steffen Trumtrar s.trumtrar@pengutronix.de
Hmmm... here's my thoughts as an outside reviewer. Correct me if I'm making an incorrect assumption.
It looks to me that the purpose of this entire series is to decode video timings from the device tree and (eventually) provide the data in the form 'struct videomode'. Correct?
If so, then it looks over engineered. Creating new infrastructure to allocate, maintain, and free a new 'struct display_timings' doesn't make any sense when it is an intermediary data format that will never be used by drivers.
Can the DT parsing code instead return a table of struct videomode?
But, wait... struct videomode is also a new structure. So it looks like this series creates two new intermediary data structures; display_timings and videomode. And at least as far as I can see in this series struct fb_videomode is the only user.
struct videomode is supposed to slowly replace the various video mode structures we currently have in the kernel (struct drm_mode_modeinfo, struct fb_videomode and struct v4l2_bt_timings), at least where possible (userspace APIs can't be broken). This will make it possible to reuse code across the DRM, FB and V4L2 subsystems, such as the EDID parser or HDMI encoder drivers. This rationale might not be clearly explained in the commit message, but having a shared video mode structure is pretty important.
Okay that make sense. What about struct display_timings?
I'll let Steffen answer on that one as I (currently) have no strong feeling about it. If we were to remove it we would need to carry the number of timings, native timing and timings array around. That wouldn't be very practical for drivers, but it probably all depends on the usage drivers will make of that information.