On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Laurent Pinchart laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com wrote:
On Wednesday 19 December 2012 09:26:40 Rob Clark wrote:
And, there are also external HDMI encoders (for example connected over i2c) that can also be shared between boards. So I think there will be a number of cases where CDF is appropriate for HDMI drivers. Although trying to keep this all independent of DRM (as opposed to just something similar to what drivers/gpu/i2c is today) seems a bit overkill for me. Being able to use the helpers in drm and avoiding an extra layer of translation seems like the better option to me. So my vote would be drivers/gpu/cdf.
I don't think there will be any need for translation (except perhaps between the DRM mode structures and the common video mode structure that is being discussed). Add a drm_ prefix to the existing CDF functions and structures, and there you go :-)
well, and translation for any properties that we'd want to expose to userspace, etc, etc.. I see there being a big potential for a lot of needless glue
BR, -R
The reason why I'd like to keep CDF separate from DRM (or at least not requiring a drm_device) is that HDMI/DP encoders can be used by pure V4L2 drivers.
For DSI panels (or DSI-to-whatever bridges) it's of course another story. You typically need a panel specific driver. And here I see the main point of the whole CDF: decoupling display controllers and the panel drivers, and sharing panel (and converter chip) specific drivers across display controllers. Making it easy to write new drivers, as there would be a model to follow. I'm definitely in favour of coming up with some framework that would tackle that.
-- Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html