Am 14.12.2016 um 11:25 schrieb Maxime Ripard maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:02:33AM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 5:16 AM, Icenowy Zheng icenowy@aosc.xyz wrote:
14.12.2016, 04:29, "Simon Glass" sjg@chromium.org:
Hi,
On 12 December 2016 at 19:36, Jernej Skrabec jernej.skrabec@siol.net wrote: This patch series add support for HDMI output. Support for other, newer, SoCs, which also uses DE2 and same or similar HDMI controller and PHY can be easily added later (A83T/A64/H5/R40). Current driver can also be easily extended with TV out support, just like video driver for older Allwinner SoCs.
While driver works, I would like to get few opinions first.
- From what I understand, drivers which supports DT are preferred. Would it be better to rewrite this driver to support device tree?
Yes I think so, and in fact it should use driver model also.
The rockchip driver provides a reasonable example of how to split the driver up as you suggest below. The VIDEO driver provides the top-level video interface, DISPLAY drivers provide display output for the video, and you have PANEL as well for receiving the display output. VIDCONSOLE works automatically to display text.
I actually took a bit of a look at this a few weeks ago so am happy to help with review or discussions.
Yes, I think go to Driver Model is also valuable, as Allwinner's display parts are really in reusable components.
In addition, Driver Model provides the possibility to use EFI GOP, which can be a more standardized replacement of SimpleFB, especially for OSes other than Linux. (For example, Windows, if we can really get it running ;-) )
We're going to use EFI now? Doesn't EFI mean we have to leave another bit of firmware in memory running under the OS? What about PSCI and ATF on ARMv8?
Until EFI on A64 on U-boot is a real thing, I don't really care to be honest.
How is it not a real thing today?
Alex