4 ms·
Did you work for display panel driver manufacturers or an industry dealing with similar PHY's or are you applying assumptions about unrelated hardware from an u
by arghwhat 3y ago
Did you work for display panel driver manufacturers or an industry dealing with similar PHY's or are you applying assumptions about unrelated hardware from an unrelated field?
If a panel driver manufacturer messed up the standard MIPI DSI and eDP interfaces for a bog standard smartphone panel, they would not have a business. Conformance is easy to validate due to the very limited scope. On the other end, Apple likely sources a third party IP block (as is standard in the industry) for their SoCs, and have little to do with over what goes on the wire.
If the display was a dud for other reasons and the software update overlap was coincidental, then sure Apple is without blame - this could happen with an original screen too.
- nomel 3y agoWell, you’re assuming a display module only contains a display. See my original comment: > with a knock off display/touch module I don’t agree with this, > they would not have a business > Conformance is easy to validate due to the very limited scope This is difficult to respond to, since we come from such different backgrounds. Your assumption is that there is reasonable QA, for a knock off part. Even though this is a logical assumption to have, it is incorrect. QA can very often be, does it work in this device we have right here? And, implementing a hardware interface correctly doesn’t mean much when you, for example, attach a flex that makes the signal marginal.