Subject: Naming convention DSI + device tree

From: [email-masked] (Alex Courbot)
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 14:36:34 +0900

On 05/17/2013 03:17 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> Is this upcoming CDF included within your "linux-next_common"
>> branch?
>
> No. That branch of mine is basd on linux-next, so whatever is in
> linux-next is in my branch, and I certainly haven't applied the CDF
> locally.
>
> I believe the CDF has been posted to various mailing lists a few
> times, but it isn't checked in yet since there isn't a final version.
> I CC'd Alex; he might know the status better than me.

Current version is RFC v2 - I know Laurent is working on a v3, but it is 
taking some time. It will probably differ considerably from v2, so be 
warned if you use it.

Still, if you want to play around with the CDF, you can have a look at 
the tegra-cdf branch of my github repo: 
https://github.com/Gnurou/linux/commits/tegra-cdf

It was kind of old so I rebased it on top of 3.10rc1. It includes the 
CDF v2 patch, adds CDF support to the tegra-drm driver, and also 
implements a driver for the Tegra 2-based Ventana panel. It's pretty 
straightforward to read so I guess you can use that as a guide.

I checked whether the rebase worked and it does - you just need to 
enable host1x/tegradrm support on top of the default settings (Stephen, 
why aren't these enabled by default?)

So long story short, CDF works well and is small enough to be easy to 
maintain out-of-tree. A proper panel framework is desperately needed in 
the kernel, so I hope it will move forward soon.

Hope this helps,
Alex.