On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:41:33AM +0530, Ajay kumar wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Thierry Reding thierry.reding@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 03:00:37AM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Monday 22 September 2014 13:35:15 Thierry Reding wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 04:53:22PM +0530, Ajay kumar wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 02:01:38PM +0530, Ajay kumar wrote: > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Thierry Reding wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:20:40AM +0530, Ajay kumar wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > >> > On 17/09/14 17:29, Ajay kumar wrote: > >> >> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > >> >>> On 27/08/14 17:39, Ajay Kumar wrote: > >> >>>> Add documentation for DT properties supported by ps8622/ps8625 > >> >>>> eDP-LVDS converter. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Signed-off-by: Ajay Kumar ajaykumar.rs@samsung.com > >> >>>> --- > >> >>>> > >> >>>> .../devicetree/bindings/video/bridge/ps8622.txt | 20 > >> >>>> ++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+) > >> >>>> create mode 100644 > >> >>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/video/bridge/ps8622.txt > >> >>>> > >> >>>> diff --git > >> >>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/video/bridge/ps8622.txt > >> >>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/video/bridge/ps8622.txt > >> >>>> new file mode 100644 > >> >>>> index 0000000..0ec8172 > >> >>>> --- /dev/null > >> >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/video/bridge/ps8622.txt > >> >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ > >> >>>> +ps8622-bridge bindings > >> >>>> + > >> >>>> +Required properties: > >> >>>> + - compatible: "parade,ps8622" or "parade,ps8625" > >> >>>> + - reg: first i2c address of the bridge > >> >>>> + - sleep-gpios: OF device-tree gpio specification for PD_ > >> >>>> pin. > >> >>>> + - reset-gpios: OF device-tree gpio specification for RST_ > >> >>>> pin. > >> >>>> + > >> >>>> +Optional properties: > >> >>>> + - lane-count: number of DP lanes to use > >> >>>> + - use-external-pwm: backlight will be controlled by an > >> >>>> external PWM > >> >>> > >> >>> What does this mean? That the backlight support from ps8625 is > >> >>> not used? If so, maybe "disable-pwm" or something? > >> >> > >> >> "use-external-pwm" or "disable-bridge-pwm" would be better. > >> > > >> > Well, the properties are about the bridge. "use-external-pwm" > >> > means that the bridge uses an external PWM, which, if I understood > >> > correctly, is not what the property is about. > >> > > >> > "disable-bridge-pwm" is ok, but the "bridge" there is extra. The > >> > properties are about the bridge, so it's implicit. > >> > >> Ok. I will use "disable-pwm". > > > > Why is this even necessary? According to the datasheet this device > > has circuitry for backlight control. If so, I'd expect it to expose > > either a backlight device or a PWM device. That way unless somebody > > is using the backlight/PWM exposed by the bridge the bridge can > > simply disable PWM. > > The driver does expose a backlight device. > And, the decision(whether to expose a backlight device or not) is made > based on the DT flag "use-external-pwm". > This was discussed before, and you suggested to use the boolean > property, refer to this link: > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2014-July/065048.html
I think you misunderstood what I said, or maybe I didn't explain clearly what I meant. If the PS8622 provides a backlight there's nothing wrong with always exposing it. The bridge itself isn't going to be using the backlight anyway. Rather the panel itself should be using the backlight device exposed by PS8622 or some separate backlight device.
To illustrate by an example: ps8622: ... {
compatible = "parade,ps8622"; ... }; panel { ... backlight = <&ps8622>; ... };No, if ps8622 backlight control is used, we need not specify the backlight phandle for the panel driver. Somehow, ps8622 internal circuitry keeps the bootup glitch free :) Backlight control and panel controls can be separate then.
But they shouldn't. Your panel driver should always be the one to control backlight. How else is the bridge supposed to know when to turn backlight on or off?
What you did in v6 of this series was look up a backlight device and then not use it. That seemed unnecessary. Looking at v6 again the reason for getting a phandle to the backlight was so that the device itself did not expose its own backlight controlling circuitry if an external one was being used. But since the bridge has no business controlling the backlight, having the backlight phandle in the bridge is not correct.
So I think what you could do in the driver instead is always expose the backlight device. If the panel used a different backlight, the PS8622's internal on simply wouldn't be accessed. It would still be possible to control the backlight in sysfs, but that shouldn't be a problem (only root can access it)
That would be like simple exposing a feature which cannot be used by the user, ideally which "should not be" used by the user.
And it won't be used unless they access the sysfs files directly. There are a lot of cases where we expose functionality that cannot be meaningfully used by the user. For example, a GPIO may not be routed to anything on a board, yet we don't explicitly hide any specific GPIOs from users.
That said, I have no strong objections to the boolean property if you feel like it's really necessary.
Won't you think having a boolean property for an optional feature of the device, is better than all these?
Like I said, I'm indifferent on the matter. I don't think it's necessary to hide the backlight device, but if you want to, please feel free to do so.
DT typically use
status = "disabled"to disable devices. In this case we don't want to disable the ps8622 completely, but just one of its functions. Maybe a "backlight-status" property could be used for that ? If that's considered too verbose, I would be fine with a "disable-<feature>" boolean property too.
Another alternative would be to make the backlight a subnode:
ps8622: bridge@... { compatible = "parade,ps8622"; ... backlight { ... status = "disabled"; ... };In the above case, how do I query the status of backlight sub node in the driver?
Something like this should work:
struct device_node *np;
np = of_get_child_by_name(dev->of_node, "backlight"); if (np) { if (of_device_is_available(np)) { /* register backlight device */ }
of_node_put(np); }
Thierry