Re: [PATCH/RFC v3 00/19] Common Display Framework

2013-10-18 Thread Andrzej Hajda
On 10/17/2013 02:55 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > On 17/10/13 15:26, Andrzej Hajda wrote: > >> I am not sure what exactly the encoder performs, if this is only image >> transport from dispc to panel CDF pipeline in both cases should look like: >> dispc > panel >> The only difference is that panel

Re: [PATCH/RFC v3 00/19] Common Display Framework

2013-10-17 Thread Tomi Valkeinen
On 17/10/13 15:26, Andrzej Hajda wrote: > I am not sure what exactly the encoder performs, if this is only image > transport from dispc to panel CDF pipeline in both cases should look like: > dispc > panel > The only difference is that panels will be connected via different Linux bus > adapter

Re: [PATCH/RFC v3 00/19] Common Display Framework

2013-10-17 Thread Andrzej Hajda
On 10/17/2013 10:18 AM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > On 17/10/13 10:48, Andrzej Hajda wrote: > >> The main function of DSI is to transport pixels from one IP to another IP >> and this function IMO should not be modeled by display entity. >> "Power, clocks, etc" will be performed via control bus accordin

Re: [PATCH/RFC v3 00/19] Common Display Framework

2013-10-17 Thread Tomi Valkeinen
On 17/10/13 10:48, Andrzej Hajda wrote: > The main function of DSI is to transport pixels from one IP to another IP > and this function IMO should not be modeled by display entity. > "Power, clocks, etc" will be performed via control bus according to > panel demands. > If 'DSI chip' has additional

Re: [PATCH/RFC v3 00/19] Common Display Framework

2013-10-17 Thread Andrzej Hajda
Hi Tomi, Sorry for delayed response. On 10/11/2013 04:45 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > On 11/10/13 17:16, Andrzej Hajda wrote: > >> Picture size, content and format is the same on input and on output of DSI. >> The same bits which enters DSI appears on the output. Internally bits >> order can >> b

Re: [PATCH/RFC v3 00/19] Common Display Framework

2013-10-11 Thread Tomi Valkeinen
On 11/10/13 17:16, Andrzej Hajda wrote: > Picture size, content and format is the same on input and on output of DSI. > The same bits which enters DSI appears on the output. Internally bits > order can > be different but practically you are configuring DSI master and slave > with the same format.

Re: [PATCH/RFC v3 00/19] Common Display Framework

2013-10-11 Thread Andrzej Hajda
On 10/11/2013 02:30 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > On 11/10/13 14:19, Andrzej Hajda wrote: >> On 10/11/2013 08:37 AM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: >>> The minimum bta-timeout should be deducable from the DSI bus speed, >>> shouldn't it? Thus there's no need to define it anywhere. >> Hmm, specification says "

Re: [PATCH/RFC v3 00/19] Common Display Framework

2013-10-11 Thread Tomi Valkeinen
On 11/10/13 14:19, Andrzej Hajda wrote: > On 10/11/2013 08:37 AM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: >> The minimum bta-timeout should be deducable from the DSI bus speed, >> shouldn't it? Thus there's no need to define it anywhere. > Hmm, specification says "This specified period shall be longer then > the ma

Re: [PATCH/RFC v3 00/19] Common Display Framework

2013-10-11 Thread Andrzej Hajda
On 10/11/2013 08:37 AM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > On 09/10/13 17:08, Andrzej Hajda wrote: > >> As I have adopted existing internal driver for MIPI-DSI bus, I did not >> take too much >> care for DT. You are right, 'bta-timeout' is a configuration parameter >> (however its >> minimal value is determin

Re: [PATCH/RFC v3 00/19] Common Display Framework

2013-10-10 Thread Tomi Valkeinen
On 09/10/13 17:08, Andrzej Hajda wrote: > As I have adopted existing internal driver for MIPI-DSI bus, I did not > take too much > care for DT. You are right, 'bta-timeout' is a configuration parameter > (however its > minimal value is determined by characteristic of the DSI-slave). On the > other

Re: [PATCH/RFC v3 00/19] Common Display Framework

2013-10-09 Thread Andrzej Hajda
On 10/02/2013 03:24 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > Hi Andrzej, > > On 02/10/13 15:23, Andrzej Hajda wrote: > >>> Using Linux buses for DBI/DSI >>> = >>> >>> I still don't see how it would work. I've covered this multiple times in >>> previous posts so I'm not going into mor

Re: [PATCH/RFC v3 00/19] Common Display Framework

2013-10-02 Thread Tomi Valkeinen
Hi Andrzej, On 02/10/13 15:23, Andrzej Hajda wrote: >> Using Linux buses for DBI/DSI >> = >> >> I still don't see how it would work. I've covered this multiple times in >> previous posts so I'm not going into more details now. >> >> I implemented DSI (just command mode

Re: [PATCH/RFC v3 00/19] Common Display Framework

2013-10-02 Thread Andrzej Hajda
Hi Tomi, On 09/30/2013 03:48 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > On 09/08/13 20:14, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >> Hi everybody, >> >> Here's the third RFC of the Common Display Framework. > > > Hi, > > I've been trying to adapt the latest CDF RFC for OMAP. I'm trying to gather > some notes here about what

[PATCH/RFC v3 00/19] Common Display Framework

2013-08-09 Thread Laurent Pinchart
Hi everybody, Here's the third RFC of the Common Display Framework. This is a resent, the series I've sent earlier seems not to have made it to the vger mailing lists, possibly due to a too long list of CCs (the other explanation being that CDF has been delayed for so long that vger considers it a