MIPI is easier from an EMI perspective and lets you use a much better ISP on the processor.
MIPI is easier from an EMI perspective and lets you use a much better ISP on the processor.
Edit: doing some quick math, it seems like transmitting a raw/uncompressed signal at even 720p60 far exceeds the bandwidth of USB-2.
So if the goal is to shift all transcoding to the CPU, MIPI does make sense.
Is that an issue with USB 3.0 causing interference on the 2.4GHz band and thus interfering with Wifi/BT antennas mounted in the lid? It can't just be a signal frequency issue on the USB side, since eDP signals for the display itself are much higher bandwidth.
> MIPI is easier from an EMI perspective
In the "MIPI family" (e.g. FPD-link, GMSL) there are solutions for longer lengths via coax, but MIPI CSI itself seems pretty focused on short distance links (as expected, considering its phone industry roots). It seems like the distance from processor to hinge to top-of-screen could easily get close to the nominal maximum length of MIPI CSI. Or are laptops already using MIPI-over-coax to simplify the cabling through the hinge?