Best practice device tree design for display subsystems/DRM

[Grant Likely]

On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 9:25 PM, Russell King <rmk at arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:57:32PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
>> I am against a super node which contains lcd and dcon/ire nodes. You can
>> enable those devices on a per board basis. We add them to dove.dtsi but
>> disable them by default (status = "disabled").
>>
>> The DRM driver itself should get a video-card node outside of
>> soc/internal-regs where you can put e.g. video memory hole (or video
>> mem size if it will be taken from RAM later)
>>
>> About the unusual case, I guess we should try to get both lcd
>> controllers into one DRM driver. Then support mirror or screen
>> extension X already provides. For those applications where you want
>> X on one lcd and some other totally different video stream - wait
>> for someone to come up with a request or proposal.
>
> Well, all I can say then is that the onus is on those who want to treat
> the components as separate devices to come up with some foolproof way
> to solve this problem which doesn't involve making assumptions about
> the way that devices are probed and doesn't end up creating artificial
> restrictions on how the devices can be used - and doesn't end up burdening
> the common case with lots of useless complexity that they don't need.
>
> It's _that_ case which needs to come up with a proposal about how to
> handle it because you _can't_ handle it at the moment in any sane
> manner which meets the criteria I've set out above, and at the moment
> the best proposal by far to resolve that is the "super node" approach.
>
> There is _no_ way in the device model to combine several individual
> devices together into one logical device safely when the subsystem
> requires that there be a definite point where everything is known.
> That applies even more so with -EPROBE_DEFER.  With the presence of
> such a thing, there is now no logical point where any code can say
> definitively that the system has technically finished booting and all
> resources are known.
>
> That's the problem - if you don't od the super-node approach, you end
> up with lots of individual devices which you have to figure out some
> way of combining, and coping with missing ones which might not be
> available in the order you want them to be, etc.
>
> That's the advantage of the "super node" approach - it's a container
> to tell you what's required in order to complete the creation of the
> logical device, and you can parse the sub-nodes to locate the
> information you need.

Alternatively, you can have the same effect with a property or set of
properties in the controller node that contains phandles to the
required devices. That would provide the driver with the same
information about which devices must be present.

g.