Hi, > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tomi Valkeinen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 1:55 PM > > To: Hiremath, Vaibhav > > Cc: Shah, Hardik; linux-omap@vger.kernel.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: [PREVIEW] New display subsystem for OMAP2/3 > > > > Hi Vaibhav, > > > > On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 16:21 +0530, ext Hiremath, Vaibhav wrote: > > > Tomi, > > > > > > Have you got a chance to review the DSS library and V4l2 driver which we > > > have posted? > > > > Unfortunately not very much. I've been glancing the DSS side of the > > driver, but not the v4l side as I don't know much about it. > > > > There seems to be awfully lot ifdefs for board/cpu types in the code. > > As far as ifdefs are concerned, they are added to take care of OMAP2/3 > variants. Especially you will find many instances of CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP3410 and > the reason is obvious, OMAP3410 doesn't have VENC. As I have mentioned > before, DSS library is designed to support both LCD, TV, and many more.
They make the code unclear. I have divided the functionality to separate files, that can easily be left out. So for OMAP3410 I would just disable the VENC config option. And then I can test for CONFIG_DSS_VENC, instead of OMAP3410 || OMAP2410 || OMAPwhatnot. Of course you can't do this for all things, but at least VENC is not one of these. And all board specific code should, in my opinion, be in board files. I don't have any board specific definitions in the DSS driver or the LCD/controller drivers. (well, ok, there is something in the DSI driver, it's still quite raw). > > My biased and superficial view of the differences between my DSS and > > yours is that: > > Tomi, here I differ from you. There should not be biased opinion. What we are > looking here is a good design which will fulfill all our requirements/use > case, like LCD, DVI, HDMI and TV for us and DSI, RFBI for you. Agreed. I was just pointing out that I haven't used enough time to study your DSS to really comment on it, and that a coder tends to like his own code =). > > - My implementation is cleaner, better organized and more generic > > Again, here both of us will be having biased comments to support our own > design, so I would prefer not to comment on this. Lets people on the > community decide whose design is better. > > > - My implementation has support for DSI, SDI, RFBI, L4 updates > > DSI, SDI and RFBI are the modes, which we can add anytime to the system > depending as per our requirement. > It is again driven by use case; you have use cases for DSI, SDI and RFBI. We > have for TV, DVI, HDMI and LCD, so we strongly concentrated on these. > > We can very well add these supports to DSS Library with minimal effort. SDI is quite easy, but I wouldn't say adding RFBI and DSI is minimal effort. DSI is quite complex in itself, and the manual update mode changes how the DSS has to handle things. > > - Your implementation has better support for "extra" things like VRFB, > > color conversions, alpha etc. > > - Your implementation most likely has better power management support. > > - And of course what is most visible to the user, my version uses only > > framebuffers, and yours uses also v4l2 devices. > > > > You really can't deny the V4L2 framework advantages over framebuffer, > especially for streaming kind of applications. Looking towards the hardware > features OMAP supports; we would really require to have such > support/capabilities. Community is also in agreement for the V4L2 interface > on OMAP-DSS. Well, I'm not the best one to comment on V4L2 as I don't know much about it. But I remember seeing quite negative comments about V4L2 a while ago in this or related mail thread, so I'm not yet ready to change to V4L2 camp. The best option would be, of course, to have both =). > Tony/Hans, > Your comments would be helpful here. > > > As for the future, I have no choice but to keep using my DSS as we need > > the features it has. I feel it would be quite a big job to get those in > > to your driver. And even if I had a choice, I (unsurprisingly =) think > > that my version is better and would stick to it. > > > > It's your personal choice to stick to whichever code base you want, I don't > want to comment on that. But what I believe is, with your design we are > limiting ourselves from supporting most of the features which hardware > provides. Is the limiting factor here the missing V4L2 interface? Or something in the core DSS driver? To my knowledge you can have all the HW features supported with framebuffers, even though V4L2 device can perhaps make the use easier for some applications. Well, one thing comes to my mind, and it's sharing the framebuffer memory between, for example, display and camera drivers. I believe you can do that with V4L2. Something else? > We can work together to add more support to DSS library. Sure, I don't really care which version is accepted, as long as we get all the features =). So if you see something usable in my code, just take it and add to your version. Tomi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
