Hi,
A bit old thread, but I noticed this only now.
On 01/11/13 02:10, Dave Airlie wrote:
> But why? why should we have separate drivers for each component of a
> tightly coupled SoC?
>
> it makes no sense, having a driver node per every block in the chip
> isn't an advantage, it complicates
>
2013/11/1 Dave Airlie :
>>> After looking at some of the ordering issues we've had with x86 GPUs
>>> (which are really just a tightly coupled SoC) I don't want separate
>>> drivers all having their own init, suspend/resume paths in them as I
>>> know we'll have to start making special vtable entry
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 10:10:41AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> >> After looking at some of the ordering issues we've had with x86 GPUs
> >> (which are really just a tightly coupled SoC) I don't want separate
> >> drivers all having their own init, suspend/resume paths in them as I
> >> know we'll
>> After looking at some of the ordering issues we've had with x86 GPUs
>> (which are really just a tightly coupled SoC) I don't want separate
>> drivers all having their own init, suspend/resume paths in them as I
>> know we'll have to start making special vtable entry points etc to
>> solve some
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 10:10:41AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> > Still the different components can be multiple devices, just initialize
> > the drm device once all components are probed. Remove it again once a
> But why? why should we have separate drivers for each component of a
> tightly
On Wednesday 30 of October 2013 13:02:29 Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 01:52:57PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> > So we had a sessions at kernel summit to discuss the driver model and
> > DT interactions for a display pipeline,
> >
> > we had good attendance from a few sides and I
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 01:52:57PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> So we had a sessions at kernel summit to discuss the driver model and
> DT interactions for a display pipeline,
>
> we had good attendance from a few sides and I hope to summarise the
> recommendations below,
>
> a) Device Tree
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 01:52:57PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> So we had a sessions at kernel summit to discuss the driver model and
> DT interactions for a display pipeline,
>
> we had good attendance from a few sides and I hope to summarise the
> recommendations below,
>
> a) Device Tree
So we had a sessions at kernel summit to discuss the driver model and
DT interactions for a display pipeline,
we had good attendance from a few sides and I hope to summarise the
recommendations below,
a) Device Tree bindings
We should create a top-level virtual device binding that a top level
