| Message ID | 20200504213624.1.Ibc8eeddcee94984a608d6900b46f9ffde4045da4@changeid (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: Implement lane reordering + polarity | expand |
Quoting Douglas Anderson (2020-05-04 21:36:31) > The ti-sn65dsi86 MIPI DSI to eDP bridge chip supports arbitrary > remapping of eDP lanes and also polarity inversion. Both of these > features have been described in the device tree bindings for the > device since the beginning but were never implemented in the driver. > Implement both of them. > > Part of this change also allows you to (via the same device tree > bindings) specify to use fewer than the max number of DP lanes that > the panel reports. This could be useful if your display supports more > lanes but only a few are hooked up on your board. > > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> > --- Except for one thing below: Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c > index 1a125423eb07..52cca54b525f 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c > @@ -707,26 +716,20 @@ static void ti_sn_bridge_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge) > int dp_rate_idx; > unsigned int val; > int ret = -EINVAL; > + int max_dp_lanes; > > - /* > - * Run with the maximum number of lanes that the DP sink supports. > - * > - * Depending use cases, we might want to revisit this later because: > - * - It's plausible that someone may have run fewer lines to the > - * sink than the sink actually supports, assuming that the lines > - * will just be driven at a higher rate. > - * - The DP spec seems to indicate that it's more important to minimize > - * the number of lanes than the link rate. > - * > - * If we do revisit, it would be important to measure the power impact. > - */ > - pdata->dp_lanes = ti_sn_get_max_lanes(pdata); > + max_dp_lanes = ti_sn_get_max_lanes(pdata); > + pdata->dp_lanes = min(pdata->dp_lanes, max_dp_lanes); > > /* DSI_A lane config */ > val = CHA_DSI_LANES(4 - pdata->dsi->lanes); Not a problem in this patch, but maybe this can be SN_MAX_DP_LANES - pdata->dsi->lanes now. > regmap_update_bits(pdata->regmap, SN_DSI_LANES_REG, > CHA_DSI_LANES_MASK, val); > > + regmap_write(pdata->regmap, SN_LN_ASSIGN_REG, pdata->ln_assign); > + regmap_update_bits(pdata->regmap, SN_ENH_FRAME_REG, LN_POLRS_MASK, > + pdata->ln_polrs << LN_POLRS_OFFSET); > + > /* set dsi clk frequency value */ > ti_sn_bridge_set_dsi_rate(pdata); > > @@ -1063,6 +1066,50 @@ static int ti_sn_setup_gpio_controller(struct ti_sn_bridge *pdata) > return ret; > } > > +static void ti_sn_bridge_parse_lanes(struct ti_sn_bridge *pdata, > + struct device_node *np) > +{ > + u32 lane_assignments[SN_MAX_DP_LANES] = { 0, 1, 2, 3 }; > + u32 lane_polarities[SN_MAX_DP_LANES] = { }; > + struct device_node *endpoint; > + u8 ln_assign = 0; > + u8 ln_polrs = 0; Do we need to assign to 0 to start? Seems like no? > + int dp_lanes; > + int i; > + > + /* > + * Read config from the device tree about lane remapping and lane > + * polarities. These are optional and we assume identity map and > + * normal polarity if nothing is specified. It's OK to specify just > + * data-lanes but not lane-polarities but not vice versa. > + */ > + endpoint = of_graph_get_endpoint_by_regs(np, 1, -1); > + dp_lanes = of_property_count_u32_elems(endpoint, "data-lanes"); > + if (dp_lanes > 0) { > + of_property_read_u32_array(endpoint, "data-lanes", > + lane_assignments, dp_lanes); > + of_property_read_u32_array(endpoint, "lane-polarities", > + lane_polarities, dp_lanes); > + } else { > + dp_lanes = SN_MAX_DP_LANES; > + } Needs an of_node_put(endpoint) here for the of_graph_get_endpoint_by_regs() above. > + > + /* > + * Convert into register format. Loop over all lanes even if > + * data-lanes had fewer elements so that we nicely initialize > + * the LN_ASSIGN register. > + */ > + for (i = SN_MAX_DP_LANES - 1; i >= 0; i--) { > + ln_assign = ln_assign << LN_ASSIGN_WIDTH | lane_assignments[i]; > + ln_polrs = ln_polrs << 1 | lane_polarities[i]; > + } > + > + /* Stash in our struct for when we power on */ > + pdata->dp_lanes = dp_lanes; > + pdata->ln_assign = ln_assign; > + pdata->ln_polrs = ln_polrs; > +}
Hi Douglas, Thank you for the patch. On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 09:36:31PM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote: > The ti-sn65dsi86 MIPI DSI to eDP bridge chip supports arbitrary > remapping of eDP lanes and also polarity inversion. Both of these > features have been described in the device tree bindings for the > device since the beginning but were never implemented in the driver. > Implement both of them. > > Part of this change also allows you to (via the same device tree > bindings) specify to use fewer than the max number of DP lanes that > the panel reports. This could be useful if your display supports more > lanes but only a few are hooked up on your board. > > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> > --- > This patch is based upon my my outstanding series[1] not because there > is any real requirement but simply to avoid merge conflicts. I > believe that my previous series is ready to land. If, however, you'd > prefer that I rebase this patch somewhere atop something else then > please shout. > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200430194617.197510-1-dianders@chromium.org > > drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c | 75 ++++++++++++++++++++++----- > 1 file changed, 62 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c > index 1a125423eb07..52cca54b525f 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c > @@ -50,8 +50,12 @@ > #define SN_CHA_VERTICAL_BACK_PORCH_REG 0x36 > #define SN_CHA_HORIZONTAL_FRONT_PORCH_REG 0x38 > #define SN_CHA_VERTICAL_FRONT_PORCH_REG 0x3A > +#define SN_LN_ASSIGN_REG 0x59 > +#define LN_ASSIGN_WIDTH 2 > #define SN_ENH_FRAME_REG 0x5A > #define VSTREAM_ENABLE BIT(3) > +#define LN_POLRS_OFFSET 4 > +#define LN_POLRS_MASK 0xf0 > #define SN_DATA_FORMAT_REG 0x5B > #define BPP_18_RGB BIT(0) > #define SN_HPD_DISABLE_REG 0x5C > @@ -98,6 +102,7 @@ > > #define SN_REGULATOR_SUPPLY_NUM 4 > > +#define SN_MAX_DP_LANES 4 > #define SN_NUM_GPIOS 4 > > /** > @@ -115,6 +120,8 @@ > * @enable_gpio: The GPIO we toggle to enable the bridge. > * @supplies: Data for bulk enabling/disabling our regulators. > * @dp_lanes: Count of dp_lanes we're using. > + * @ln_assign: Value to program to the LN_ASSIGN register. > + * @ln_polr: Value for the 4-bit LN_POLRS field of SN_ENH_FRAME_REG. > * > * @gchip: If we expose our GPIOs, this is used. > * @gchip_output: A cache of whether we've set GPIOs to output. This > @@ -140,6 +147,8 @@ struct ti_sn_bridge { > struct gpio_desc *enable_gpio; > struct regulator_bulk_data supplies[SN_REGULATOR_SUPPLY_NUM]; > int dp_lanes; > + u8 ln_assign; > + u8 ln_polrs; > > struct gpio_chip gchip; > DECLARE_BITMAP(gchip_output, SN_NUM_GPIOS); > @@ -707,26 +716,20 @@ static void ti_sn_bridge_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge) > int dp_rate_idx; > unsigned int val; > int ret = -EINVAL; > + int max_dp_lanes; > > - /* > - * Run with the maximum number of lanes that the DP sink supports. > - * > - * Depending use cases, we might want to revisit this later because: > - * - It's plausible that someone may have run fewer lines to the > - * sink than the sink actually supports, assuming that the lines > - * will just be driven at a higher rate. > - * - The DP spec seems to indicate that it's more important to minimize > - * the number of lanes than the link rate. > - * > - * If we do revisit, it would be important to measure the power impact. > - */ > - pdata->dp_lanes = ti_sn_get_max_lanes(pdata); > + max_dp_lanes = ti_sn_get_max_lanes(pdata); > + pdata->dp_lanes = min(pdata->dp_lanes, max_dp_lanes); > > /* DSI_A lane config */ > val = CHA_DSI_LANES(4 - pdata->dsi->lanes); > regmap_update_bits(pdata->regmap, SN_DSI_LANES_REG, > CHA_DSI_LANES_MASK, val); > > + regmap_write(pdata->regmap, SN_LN_ASSIGN_REG, pdata->ln_assign); > + regmap_update_bits(pdata->regmap, SN_ENH_FRAME_REG, LN_POLRS_MASK, > + pdata->ln_polrs << LN_POLRS_OFFSET); > + > /* set dsi clk frequency value */ > ti_sn_bridge_set_dsi_rate(pdata); > > @@ -1063,6 +1066,50 @@ static int ti_sn_setup_gpio_controller(struct ti_sn_bridge *pdata) > return ret; > } > > +static void ti_sn_bridge_parse_lanes(struct ti_sn_bridge *pdata, > + struct device_node *np) > +{ > + u32 lane_assignments[SN_MAX_DP_LANES] = { 0, 1, 2, 3 }; > + u32 lane_polarities[SN_MAX_DP_LANES] = { }; > + struct device_node *endpoint; > + u8 ln_assign = 0; > + u8 ln_polrs = 0; > + int dp_lanes; > + int i; > + > + /* > + * Read config from the device tree about lane remapping and lane > + * polarities. These are optional and we assume identity map and > + * normal polarity if nothing is specified. It's OK to specify just > + * data-lanes but not lane-polarities but not vice versa. > + */ > + endpoint = of_graph_get_endpoint_by_regs(np, 1, -1); Shouldn't you check for endpoint == NULL and fail probe if it is ? > + dp_lanes = of_property_count_u32_elems(endpoint, "data-lanes"); > + if (dp_lanes > 0) { > + of_property_read_u32_array(endpoint, "data-lanes", > + lane_assignments, dp_lanes); > + of_property_read_u32_array(endpoint, "lane-polarities", > + lane_polarities, dp_lanes); Similarly, with a buggy DT, you may have a buffer overrun here. I would first check that dp_lanes <= SN_MAX_DP_LANES and error out otherwise. > + } else { > + dp_lanes = SN_MAX_DP_LANES; > + } > + > + /* > + * Convert into register format. Loop over all lanes even if > + * data-lanes had fewer elements so that we nicely initialize > + * the LN_ASSIGN register. > + */ > + for (i = SN_MAX_DP_LANES - 1; i >= 0; i--) { > + ln_assign = ln_assign << LN_ASSIGN_WIDTH | lane_assignments[i]; > + ln_polrs = ln_polrs << 1 | lane_polarities[i]; > + } The datasheet documents the lane remapping register as allowing pretty much any combination, but "Table 12. Logical to Physical Supported Combinations" only documents a subset (for instance data-lanes = <2 3> isn't allowed in that table). Should we guard against invalid configurations ? > + > + /* Stash in our struct for when we power on */ > + pdata->dp_lanes = dp_lanes; > + pdata->ln_assign = ln_assign; > + pdata->ln_polrs = ln_polrs; > +} > + > static int ti_sn_bridge_probe(struct i2c_client *client, > const struct i2c_device_id *id) > { > @@ -1105,6 +1152,8 @@ static int ti_sn_bridge_probe(struct i2c_client *client, > return ret; > } > > + ti_sn_bridge_parse_lanes(pdata, client->dev.of_node); > + > ret = ti_sn_bridge_parse_regulators(pdata); > if (ret) { > DRM_ERROR("failed to parse regulators\n"); >
Hi, On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 1:24 AM Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> wrote: > > Hi Douglas, > > Thank you for the patch. > > On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 09:36:31PM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote: > > The ti-sn65dsi86 MIPI DSI to eDP bridge chip supports arbitrary > > remapping of eDP lanes and also polarity inversion. Both of these > > features have been described in the device tree bindings for the > > device since the beginning but were never implemented in the driver. > > Implement both of them. > > > > Part of this change also allows you to (via the same device tree > > bindings) specify to use fewer than the max number of DP lanes that > > the panel reports. This could be useful if your display supports more > > lanes but only a few are hooked up on your board. > > > > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> > > --- > > This patch is based upon my my outstanding series[1] not because there > > is any real requirement but simply to avoid merge conflicts. I > > believe that my previous series is ready to land. If, however, you'd > > prefer that I rebase this patch somewhere atop something else then > > please shout. > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200430194617.197510-1-dianders@chromium.org > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c | 75 ++++++++++++++++++++++----- > > 1 file changed, 62 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c > > index 1a125423eb07..52cca54b525f 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c > > @@ -50,8 +50,12 @@ > > #define SN_CHA_VERTICAL_BACK_PORCH_REG 0x36 > > #define SN_CHA_HORIZONTAL_FRONT_PORCH_REG 0x38 > > #define SN_CHA_VERTICAL_FRONT_PORCH_REG 0x3A > > +#define SN_LN_ASSIGN_REG 0x59 > > +#define LN_ASSIGN_WIDTH 2 > > #define SN_ENH_FRAME_REG 0x5A > > #define VSTREAM_ENABLE BIT(3) > > +#define LN_POLRS_OFFSET 4 > > +#define LN_POLRS_MASK 0xf0 > > #define SN_DATA_FORMAT_REG 0x5B > > #define BPP_18_RGB BIT(0) > > #define SN_HPD_DISABLE_REG 0x5C > > @@ -98,6 +102,7 @@ > > > > #define SN_REGULATOR_SUPPLY_NUM 4 > > > > +#define SN_MAX_DP_LANES 4 > > #define SN_NUM_GPIOS 4 > > > > /** > > @@ -115,6 +120,8 @@ > > * @enable_gpio: The GPIO we toggle to enable the bridge. > > * @supplies: Data for bulk enabling/disabling our regulators. > > * @dp_lanes: Count of dp_lanes we're using. > > + * @ln_assign: Value to program to the LN_ASSIGN register. > > + * @ln_polr: Value for the 4-bit LN_POLRS field of SN_ENH_FRAME_REG. > > * > > * @gchip: If we expose our GPIOs, this is used. > > * @gchip_output: A cache of whether we've set GPIOs to output. This > > @@ -140,6 +147,8 @@ struct ti_sn_bridge { > > struct gpio_desc *enable_gpio; > > struct regulator_bulk_data supplies[SN_REGULATOR_SUPPLY_NUM]; > > int dp_lanes; > > + u8 ln_assign; > > + u8 ln_polrs; > > > > struct gpio_chip gchip; > > DECLARE_BITMAP(gchip_output, SN_NUM_GPIOS); > > @@ -707,26 +716,20 @@ static void ti_sn_bridge_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge) > > int dp_rate_idx; > > unsigned int val; > > int ret = -EINVAL; > > + int max_dp_lanes; > > > > - /* > > - * Run with the maximum number of lanes that the DP sink supports. > > - * > > - * Depending use cases, we might want to revisit this later because: > > - * - It's plausible that someone may have run fewer lines to the > > - * sink than the sink actually supports, assuming that the lines > > - * will just be driven at a higher rate. > > - * - The DP spec seems to indicate that it's more important to minimize > > - * the number of lanes than the link rate. > > - * > > - * If we do revisit, it would be important to measure the power impact. > > - */ > > - pdata->dp_lanes = ti_sn_get_max_lanes(pdata); > > + max_dp_lanes = ti_sn_get_max_lanes(pdata); > > + pdata->dp_lanes = min(pdata->dp_lanes, max_dp_lanes); > > > > /* DSI_A lane config */ > > val = CHA_DSI_LANES(4 - pdata->dsi->lanes); > > regmap_update_bits(pdata->regmap, SN_DSI_LANES_REG, > > CHA_DSI_LANES_MASK, val); > > > > + regmap_write(pdata->regmap, SN_LN_ASSIGN_REG, pdata->ln_assign); > > + regmap_update_bits(pdata->regmap, SN_ENH_FRAME_REG, LN_POLRS_MASK, > > + pdata->ln_polrs << LN_POLRS_OFFSET); > > + > > /* set dsi clk frequency value */ > > ti_sn_bridge_set_dsi_rate(pdata); > > > > @@ -1063,6 +1066,50 @@ static int ti_sn_setup_gpio_controller(struct ti_sn_bridge *pdata) > > return ret; > > } > > > > +static void ti_sn_bridge_parse_lanes(struct ti_sn_bridge *pdata, > > + struct device_node *np) > > +{ > > + u32 lane_assignments[SN_MAX_DP_LANES] = { 0, 1, 2, 3 }; > > + u32 lane_polarities[SN_MAX_DP_LANES] = { }; > > + struct device_node *endpoint; > > + u8 ln_assign = 0; > > + u8 ln_polrs = 0; > > + int dp_lanes; > > + int i; > > + > > + /* > > + * Read config from the device tree about lane remapping and lane > > + * polarities. These are optional and we assume identity map and > > + * normal polarity if nothing is specified. It's OK to specify just > > + * data-lanes but not lane-polarities but not vice versa. > > + */ > > + endpoint = of_graph_get_endpoint_by_regs(np, 1, -1); > > Shouldn't you check for endpoint == NULL and fail probe if it is ? I will if you feel strongly, but I don't think it's necessary. Specifically: 1. By design of_property_count_u32_elems() will return an error if passed a NULL node pointer. 2. When we see an error this function will just init things to defaults. 3. Later code which really needs the endpoint to hook things up properly will catch the error and yell. ...so while I could add a yell here it doesn't seem like it gains much. > > + dp_lanes = of_property_count_u32_elems(endpoint, "data-lanes"); > > + if (dp_lanes > 0) { > > + of_property_read_u32_array(endpoint, "data-lanes", > > + lane_assignments, dp_lanes); > > + of_property_read_u32_array(endpoint, "lane-polarities", > > + lane_polarities, dp_lanes); > > Similarly, with a buggy DT, you may have a buffer overrun here. I would > first check that dp_lanes <= SN_MAX_DP_LANES and error out otherwise. I will definitely add that. Buffer overrun is no bueno. > > + } else { > > + dp_lanes = SN_MAX_DP_LANES; > > + } > > + > > + /* > > + * Convert into register format. Loop over all lanes even if > > + * data-lanes had fewer elements so that we nicely initialize > > + * the LN_ASSIGN register. > > + */ > > + for (i = SN_MAX_DP_LANES - 1; i >= 0; i--) { > > + ln_assign = ln_assign << LN_ASSIGN_WIDTH | lane_assignments[i]; > > + ln_polrs = ln_polrs << 1 | lane_polarities[i]; > > + } > > The datasheet documents the lane remapping register as allowing pretty > much any combination, but "Table 12. Logical to Physical Supported > Combinations" only documents a subset (for instance data-lanes = <2 3> > isn't allowed in that table). Should we guard against invalid > configurations ? As I understand it, in general standard kernel policy is to not sanity check the DT _too_ much. This feels a bit on the border. It's up to the person designing the board and writing the dts to not get things like this wrong just like it's up to them to make sure they've setup the i2c pins for our bus w/ the right pullups, configured our interrupt properly, not overvolted things, put in the correct address for MMIO, etc. I wrote this code (untested) and it feels a bit much: if (dp_lanes == 1) { if (lane_assignments[0] == 1) { pr_warn("Lane 0 to physical pin 1 not suggested\n"); } else if (lane_assignments[0] != 0) { pr_err("Unsupported logical to physical pin mapping\n"); return -EINVAL; } } else if (dp_lanes == 2 || dp_lanes == 4) { u8 good_mask = dp_lanes == 2 ? 0x3 : 0xf; u8 mask = 0; for (i = 0; i < dp_lanes; i++) mask |= BIT(lane_assignments[i]) if (mask != good_mask) { pr_err("Unsupported logical to physical pin mapping\n"); return -EINVAL; } } else { pr_err("Invalid number of DP lanes: %d\n", dp_lanes); } If you feel strongly I'll add it to the next version. Does anyone else have any opinions of whether they'd like all that checking or whether we should just trust the person designing the hardware and writing the device tree to put the right values in? -Doug
Hi On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 10:44 PM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org> wrote: > > Quoting Douglas Anderson (2020-05-04 21:36:31) > > The ti-sn65dsi86 MIPI DSI to eDP bridge chip supports arbitrary > > remapping of eDP lanes and also polarity inversion. Both of these > > features have been described in the device tree bindings for the > > device since the beginning but were never implemented in the driver. > > Implement both of them. > > > > Part of this change also allows you to (via the same device tree > > bindings) specify to use fewer than the max number of DP lanes that > > the panel reports. This could be useful if your display supports more > > lanes but only a few are hooked up on your board. > > > > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> > > --- > > Except for one thing below: > > Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c > > index 1a125423eb07..52cca54b525f 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c > > @@ -707,26 +716,20 @@ static void ti_sn_bridge_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge) > > int dp_rate_idx; > > unsigned int val; > > int ret = -EINVAL; > > + int max_dp_lanes; > > > > - /* > > - * Run with the maximum number of lanes that the DP sink supports. > > - * > > - * Depending use cases, we might want to revisit this later because: > > - * - It's plausible that someone may have run fewer lines to the > > - * sink than the sink actually supports, assuming that the lines > > - * will just be driven at a higher rate. > > - * - The DP spec seems to indicate that it's more important to minimize > > - * the number of lanes than the link rate. > > - * > > - * If we do revisit, it would be important to measure the power impact. > > - */ > > - pdata->dp_lanes = ti_sn_get_max_lanes(pdata); > > + max_dp_lanes = ti_sn_get_max_lanes(pdata); > > + pdata->dp_lanes = min(pdata->dp_lanes, max_dp_lanes); > > > > /* DSI_A lane config */ > > val = CHA_DSI_LANES(4 - pdata->dsi->lanes); > > Not a problem in this patch, but maybe this can be SN_MAX_DP_LANES - > pdata->dsi->lanes now. Since I introduce the define in this patch, I'll update it in v2. > > regmap_update_bits(pdata->regmap, SN_DSI_LANES_REG, > > CHA_DSI_LANES_MASK, val); > > > > + regmap_write(pdata->regmap, SN_LN_ASSIGN_REG, pdata->ln_assign); > > + regmap_update_bits(pdata->regmap, SN_ENH_FRAME_REG, LN_POLRS_MASK, > > + pdata->ln_polrs << LN_POLRS_OFFSET); > > + > > /* set dsi clk frequency value */ > > ti_sn_bridge_set_dsi_rate(pdata); > > > > @@ -1063,6 +1066,50 @@ static int ti_sn_setup_gpio_controller(struct ti_sn_bridge *pdata) > > return ret; > > } > > > > +static void ti_sn_bridge_parse_lanes(struct ti_sn_bridge *pdata, > > + struct device_node *np) > > +{ > > + u32 lane_assignments[SN_MAX_DP_LANES] = { 0, 1, 2, 3 }; > > + u32 lane_polarities[SN_MAX_DP_LANES] = { }; > > + struct device_node *endpoint; > > + u8 ln_assign = 0; > > + u8 ln_polrs = 0; > > Do we need to assign to 0 to start? Seems like no? Yes. See usage: ln_assign = ln_assign << LN_ASSIGN_WIDTH | lane_assignments[i]; ln_polrs = ln_polrs << 1 | lane_polarities[i]; Notably each time we shift a new bit in we base on the old value. If you think it'll make it clearer, I can put this initialization at the beginning of the loop. It's 2 extra lines of code but if it adds clarity I'll do it. > > + int dp_lanes; > > + int i; > > + > > + /* > > + * Read config from the device tree about lane remapping and lane > > + * polarities. These are optional and we assume identity map and > > + * normal polarity if nothing is specified. It's OK to specify just > > + * data-lanes but not lane-polarities but not vice versa. > > + */ > > + endpoint = of_graph_get_endpoint_by_regs(np, 1, -1); > > + dp_lanes = of_property_count_u32_elems(endpoint, "data-lanes"); > > + if (dp_lanes > 0) { > > + of_property_read_u32_array(endpoint, "data-lanes", > > + lane_assignments, dp_lanes); > > + of_property_read_u32_array(endpoint, "lane-polarities", > > + lane_polarities, dp_lanes); > > + } else { > > + dp_lanes = SN_MAX_DP_LANES; > > + } > > Needs an of_node_put(endpoint) here for the > of_graph_get_endpoint_by_regs() above. Thanks! I'll fix in v2, which I'll send out either after a delay of a few days or whenever I get resolution on my email to Laurent, whichever comes first. ;-) -Doug
Quoting Doug Anderson (2020-05-05 11:45:05) > On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 10:44 PM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > Quoting Douglas Anderson (2020-05-04 21:36:31) > > > regmap_update_bits(pdata->regmap, SN_DSI_LANES_REG, > > > CHA_DSI_LANES_MASK, val); > > > > > > + regmap_write(pdata->regmap, SN_LN_ASSIGN_REG, pdata->ln_assign); > > > + regmap_update_bits(pdata->regmap, SN_ENH_FRAME_REG, LN_POLRS_MASK, > > > + pdata->ln_polrs << LN_POLRS_OFFSET); > > > + > > > /* set dsi clk frequency value */ > > > ti_sn_bridge_set_dsi_rate(pdata); > > > > > > @@ -1063,6 +1066,50 @@ static int ti_sn_setup_gpio_controller(struct ti_sn_bridge *pdata) > > > return ret; > > > } > > > > > > +static void ti_sn_bridge_parse_lanes(struct ti_sn_bridge *pdata, > > > + struct device_node *np) > > > +{ > > > + u32 lane_assignments[SN_MAX_DP_LANES] = { 0, 1, 2, 3 }; > > > + u32 lane_polarities[SN_MAX_DP_LANES] = { }; > > > + struct device_node *endpoint; > > > + u8 ln_assign = 0; > > > + u8 ln_polrs = 0; > > > > Do we need to assign to 0 to start? Seems like no? > > Yes. See usage: > > ln_assign = ln_assign << LN_ASSIGN_WIDTH | lane_assignments[i]; > ln_polrs = ln_polrs << 1 | lane_polarities[i]; > > Notably each time we shift a new bit in we base on the old value. If > you think it'll make it clearer, I can put this initialization at the > beginning of the loop. It's 2 extra lines of code but if it adds > clarity I'll do it. No it doesn't really make it any clearer.
Hi Doug, On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 10:59:30AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 1:24 AM Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 09:36:31PM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote: > > > The ti-sn65dsi86 MIPI DSI to eDP bridge chip supports arbitrary > > > remapping of eDP lanes and also polarity inversion. Both of these > > > features have been described in the device tree bindings for the > > > device since the beginning but were never implemented in the driver. > > > Implement both of them. > > > > > > Part of this change also allows you to (via the same device tree > > > bindings) specify to use fewer than the max number of DP lanes that > > > the panel reports. This could be useful if your display supports more > > > lanes but only a few are hooked up on your board. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> > > > --- > > > This patch is based upon my my outstanding series[1] not because there > > > is any real requirement but simply to avoid merge conflicts. I > > > believe that my previous series is ready to land. If, however, you'd > > > prefer that I rebase this patch somewhere atop something else then > > > please shout. > > > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200430194617.197510-1-dianders@chromium.org > > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c | 75 ++++++++++++++++++++++----- > > > 1 file changed, 62 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c > > > index 1a125423eb07..52cca54b525f 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c > > > @@ -50,8 +50,12 @@ > > > #define SN_CHA_VERTICAL_BACK_PORCH_REG 0x36 > > > #define SN_CHA_HORIZONTAL_FRONT_PORCH_REG 0x38 > > > #define SN_CHA_VERTICAL_FRONT_PORCH_REG 0x3A > > > +#define SN_LN_ASSIGN_REG 0x59 > > > +#define LN_ASSIGN_WIDTH 2 > > > #define SN_ENH_FRAME_REG 0x5A > > > #define VSTREAM_ENABLE BIT(3) > > > +#define LN_POLRS_OFFSET 4 > > > +#define LN_POLRS_MASK 0xf0 > > > #define SN_DATA_FORMAT_REG 0x5B > > > #define BPP_18_RGB BIT(0) > > > #define SN_HPD_DISABLE_REG 0x5C > > > @@ -98,6 +102,7 @@ > > > > > > #define SN_REGULATOR_SUPPLY_NUM 4 > > > > > > +#define SN_MAX_DP_LANES 4 > > > #define SN_NUM_GPIOS 4 > > > > > > /** > > > @@ -115,6 +120,8 @@ > > > * @enable_gpio: The GPIO we toggle to enable the bridge. > > > * @supplies: Data for bulk enabling/disabling our regulators. > > > * @dp_lanes: Count of dp_lanes we're using. > > > + * @ln_assign: Value to program to the LN_ASSIGN register. > > > + * @ln_polr: Value for the 4-bit LN_POLRS field of SN_ENH_FRAME_REG. > > > * > > > * @gchip: If we expose our GPIOs, this is used. > > > * @gchip_output: A cache of whether we've set GPIOs to output. This > > > @@ -140,6 +147,8 @@ struct ti_sn_bridge { > > > struct gpio_desc *enable_gpio; > > > struct regulator_bulk_data supplies[SN_REGULATOR_SUPPLY_NUM]; > > > int dp_lanes; > > > + u8 ln_assign; > > > + u8 ln_polrs; > > > > > > struct gpio_chip gchip; > > > DECLARE_BITMAP(gchip_output, SN_NUM_GPIOS); > > > @@ -707,26 +716,20 @@ static void ti_sn_bridge_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge) > > > int dp_rate_idx; > > > unsigned int val; > > > int ret = -EINVAL; > > > + int max_dp_lanes; > > > > > > - /* > > > - * Run with the maximum number of lanes that the DP sink supports. > > > - * > > > - * Depending use cases, we might want to revisit this later because: > > > - * - It's plausible that someone may have run fewer lines to the > > > - * sink than the sink actually supports, assuming that the lines > > > - * will just be driven at a higher rate. > > > - * - The DP spec seems to indicate that it's more important to minimize > > > - * the number of lanes than the link rate. > > > - * > > > - * If we do revisit, it would be important to measure the power impact. > > > - */ > > > - pdata->dp_lanes = ti_sn_get_max_lanes(pdata); > > > + max_dp_lanes = ti_sn_get_max_lanes(pdata); > > > + pdata->dp_lanes = min(pdata->dp_lanes, max_dp_lanes); > > > > > > /* DSI_A lane config */ > > > val = CHA_DSI_LANES(4 - pdata->dsi->lanes); > > > regmap_update_bits(pdata->regmap, SN_DSI_LANES_REG, > > > CHA_DSI_LANES_MASK, val); > > > > > > + regmap_write(pdata->regmap, SN_LN_ASSIGN_REG, pdata->ln_assign); > > > + regmap_update_bits(pdata->regmap, SN_ENH_FRAME_REG, LN_POLRS_MASK, > > > + pdata->ln_polrs << LN_POLRS_OFFSET); > > > + > > > /* set dsi clk frequency value */ > > > ti_sn_bridge_set_dsi_rate(pdata); > > > > > > @@ -1063,6 +1066,50 @@ static int ti_sn_setup_gpio_controller(struct ti_sn_bridge *pdata) > > > return ret; > > > } > > > > > > +static void ti_sn_bridge_parse_lanes(struct ti_sn_bridge *pdata, > > > + struct device_node *np) > > > +{ > > > + u32 lane_assignments[SN_MAX_DP_LANES] = { 0, 1, 2, 3 }; > > > + u32 lane_polarities[SN_MAX_DP_LANES] = { }; > > > + struct device_node *endpoint; > > > + u8 ln_assign = 0; > > > + u8 ln_polrs = 0; > > > + int dp_lanes; > > > + int i; > > > + > > > + /* > > > + * Read config from the device tree about lane remapping and lane > > > + * polarities. These are optional and we assume identity map and > > > + * normal polarity if nothing is specified. It's OK to specify just > > > + * data-lanes but not lane-polarities but not vice versa. > > > + */ > > > + endpoint = of_graph_get_endpoint_by_regs(np, 1, -1); > > > > Shouldn't you check for endpoint == NULL and fail probe if it is ? > > I will if you feel strongly, but I don't think it's necessary. Specifically: > > 1. By design of_property_count_u32_elems() will return an error if > passed a NULL node pointer. > > 2. When we see an error this function will just init things to defaults. > > 3. Later code which really needs the endpoint to hook things up > properly will catch the error and yell. > > ...so while I could add a yell here it doesn't seem like it gains much. As long as it doesn't crash and we eventually catch the error I'm fine. I usually try to catch them early as otherwise it gets harder to make sure all code paths are sanitized. Up to you. > > > + dp_lanes = of_property_count_u32_elems(endpoint, "data-lanes"); > > > + if (dp_lanes > 0) { > > > + of_property_read_u32_array(endpoint, "data-lanes", > > > + lane_assignments, dp_lanes); > > > + of_property_read_u32_array(endpoint, "lane-polarities", > > > + lane_polarities, dp_lanes); > > > > Similarly, with a buggy DT, you may have a buffer overrun here. I would > > first check that dp_lanes <= SN_MAX_DP_LANES and error out otherwise. > > I will definitely add that. Buffer overrun is no bueno. > > > > + } else { > > > + dp_lanes = SN_MAX_DP_LANES; > > > + } > > > + > > > + /* > > > + * Convert into register format. Loop over all lanes even if > > > + * data-lanes had fewer elements so that we nicely initialize > > > + * the LN_ASSIGN register. > > > + */ > > > + for (i = SN_MAX_DP_LANES - 1; i >= 0; i--) { > > > + ln_assign = ln_assign << LN_ASSIGN_WIDTH | lane_assignments[i]; > > > + ln_polrs = ln_polrs << 1 | lane_polarities[i]; > > > + } > > > > The datasheet documents the lane remapping register as allowing pretty > > much any combination, but "Table 12. Logical to Physical Supported > > Combinations" only documents a subset (for instance data-lanes = <2 3> > > isn't allowed in that table). Should we guard against invalid > > configurations ? > > As I understand it, in general standard kernel policy is to not sanity > check the DT _too_ much. This feels a bit on the border. It's up to > the person designing the board and writing the dts to not get things > like this wrong just like it's up to them to make sure they've setup > the i2c pins for our bus w/ the right pullups, configured our > interrupt properly, not overvolted things, put in the correct address > for MMIO, etc. > > I wrote this code (untested) and it feels a bit much: > > if (dp_lanes == 1) { > if (lane_assignments[0] == 1) { > pr_warn("Lane 0 to physical pin 1 not suggested\n"); > } else if (lane_assignments[0] != 0) { > pr_err("Unsupported logical to physical pin mapping\n"); > return -EINVAL; > } > } else if (dp_lanes == 2 || dp_lanes == 4) { > u8 good_mask = dp_lanes == 2 ? 0x3 : 0xf; > u8 mask = 0; > > for (i = 0; i < dp_lanes; i++) > mask |= BIT(lane_assignments[i]) > > if (mask != good_mask) { > pr_err("Unsupported logical to physical pin mapping\n"); > return -EINVAL; > } > } else { > pr_err("Invalid number of DP lanes: %d\n", dp_lanes); > } > > If you feel strongly I'll add it to the next version. Does anyone > else have any opinions of whether they'd like all that checking or > whether we should just trust the person designing the hardware and > writing the device tree to put the right values in? If we don't want to test that, I would at least document it in the DT bindings. It will be a good occasion to switch the bindings to YAML ;-)
Hi, On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 2:06 PM Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> wrote: > > Hi Doug, > > On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 10:59:30AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 1:24 AM Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 09:36:31PM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote: > > > > The ti-sn65dsi86 MIPI DSI to eDP bridge chip supports arbitrary > > > > remapping of eDP lanes and also polarity inversion. Both of these > > > > features have been described in the device tree bindings for the > > > > device since the beginning but were never implemented in the driver. > > > > Implement both of them. > > > > > > > > Part of this change also allows you to (via the same device tree > > > > bindings) specify to use fewer than the max number of DP lanes that > > > > the panel reports. This could be useful if your display supports more > > > > lanes but only a few are hooked up on your board. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> > > > > --- > > > > This patch is based upon my my outstanding series[1] not because there > > > > is any real requirement but simply to avoid merge conflicts. I > > > > believe that my previous series is ready to land. If, however, you'd > > > > prefer that I rebase this patch somewhere atop something else then > > > > please shout. > > > > > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200430194617.197510-1-dianders@chromium.org > > > > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c | 75 ++++++++++++++++++++++----- > > > > 1 file changed, 62 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c > > > > index 1a125423eb07..52cca54b525f 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c > > > > @@ -50,8 +50,12 @@ > > > > #define SN_CHA_VERTICAL_BACK_PORCH_REG 0x36 > > > > #define SN_CHA_HORIZONTAL_FRONT_PORCH_REG 0x38 > > > > #define SN_CHA_VERTICAL_FRONT_PORCH_REG 0x3A > > > > +#define SN_LN_ASSIGN_REG 0x59 > > > > +#define LN_ASSIGN_WIDTH 2 > > > > #define SN_ENH_FRAME_REG 0x5A > > > > #define VSTREAM_ENABLE BIT(3) > > > > +#define LN_POLRS_OFFSET 4 > > > > +#define LN_POLRS_MASK 0xf0 > > > > #define SN_DATA_FORMAT_REG 0x5B > > > > #define BPP_18_RGB BIT(0) > > > > #define SN_HPD_DISABLE_REG 0x5C > > > > @@ -98,6 +102,7 @@ > > > > > > > > #define SN_REGULATOR_SUPPLY_NUM 4 > > > > > > > > +#define SN_MAX_DP_LANES 4 > > > > #define SN_NUM_GPIOS 4 > > > > > > > > /** > > > > @@ -115,6 +120,8 @@ > > > > * @enable_gpio: The GPIO we toggle to enable the bridge. > > > > * @supplies: Data for bulk enabling/disabling our regulators. > > > > * @dp_lanes: Count of dp_lanes we're using. > > > > + * @ln_assign: Value to program to the LN_ASSIGN register. > > > > + * @ln_polr: Value for the 4-bit LN_POLRS field of SN_ENH_FRAME_REG. > > > > * > > > > * @gchip: If we expose our GPIOs, this is used. > > > > * @gchip_output: A cache of whether we've set GPIOs to output. This > > > > @@ -140,6 +147,8 @@ struct ti_sn_bridge { > > > > struct gpio_desc *enable_gpio; > > > > struct regulator_bulk_data supplies[SN_REGULATOR_SUPPLY_NUM]; > > > > int dp_lanes; > > > > + u8 ln_assign; > > > > + u8 ln_polrs; > > > > > > > > struct gpio_chip gchip; > > > > DECLARE_BITMAP(gchip_output, SN_NUM_GPIOS); > > > > @@ -707,26 +716,20 @@ static void ti_sn_bridge_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge) > > > > int dp_rate_idx; > > > > unsigned int val; > > > > int ret = -EINVAL; > > > > + int max_dp_lanes; > > > > > > > > - /* > > > > - * Run with the maximum number of lanes that the DP sink supports. > > > > - * > > > > - * Depending use cases, we might want to revisit this later because: > > > > - * - It's plausible that someone may have run fewer lines to the > > > > - * sink than the sink actually supports, assuming that the lines > > > > - * will just be driven at a higher rate. > > > > - * - The DP spec seems to indicate that it's more important to minimize > > > > - * the number of lanes than the link rate. > > > > - * > > > > - * If we do revisit, it would be important to measure the power impact. > > > > - */ > > > > - pdata->dp_lanes = ti_sn_get_max_lanes(pdata); > > > > + max_dp_lanes = ti_sn_get_max_lanes(pdata); > > > > + pdata->dp_lanes = min(pdata->dp_lanes, max_dp_lanes); > > > > > > > > /* DSI_A lane config */ > > > > val = CHA_DSI_LANES(4 - pdata->dsi->lanes); > > > > regmap_update_bits(pdata->regmap, SN_DSI_LANES_REG, > > > > CHA_DSI_LANES_MASK, val); > > > > > > > > + regmap_write(pdata->regmap, SN_LN_ASSIGN_REG, pdata->ln_assign); > > > > + regmap_update_bits(pdata->regmap, SN_ENH_FRAME_REG, LN_POLRS_MASK, > > > > + pdata->ln_polrs << LN_POLRS_OFFSET); > > > > + > > > > /* set dsi clk frequency value */ > > > > ti_sn_bridge_set_dsi_rate(pdata); > > > > > > > > @@ -1063,6 +1066,50 @@ static int ti_sn_setup_gpio_controller(struct ti_sn_bridge *pdata) > > > > return ret; > > > > } > > > > > > > > +static void ti_sn_bridge_parse_lanes(struct ti_sn_bridge *pdata, > > > > + struct device_node *np) > > > > +{ > > > > + u32 lane_assignments[SN_MAX_DP_LANES] = { 0, 1, 2, 3 }; > > > > + u32 lane_polarities[SN_MAX_DP_LANES] = { }; > > > > + struct device_node *endpoint; > > > > + u8 ln_assign = 0; > > > > + u8 ln_polrs = 0; > > > > + int dp_lanes; > > > > + int i; > > > > + > > > > + /* > > > > + * Read config from the device tree about lane remapping and lane > > > > + * polarities. These are optional and we assume identity map and > > > > + * normal polarity if nothing is specified. It's OK to specify just > > > > + * data-lanes but not lane-polarities but not vice versa. > > > > + */ > > > > + endpoint = of_graph_get_endpoint_by_regs(np, 1, -1); > > > > > > Shouldn't you check for endpoint == NULL and fail probe if it is ? > > > > I will if you feel strongly, but I don't think it's necessary. Specifically: > > > > 1. By design of_property_count_u32_elems() will return an error if > > passed a NULL node pointer. > > > > 2. When we see an error this function will just init things to defaults. > > > > 3. Later code which really needs the endpoint to hook things up > > properly will catch the error and yell. > > > > ...so while I could add a yell here it doesn't seem like it gains much. > > As long as it doesn't crash and we eventually catch the error I'm fine. > I usually try to catch them early as otherwise it gets harder to make > sure all code paths are sanitized. Up to you. OK, I'll leave it as-is for now unless someone else chimes in and puts my opinion in the minority or unless you change your mind and decide you really hate the way I'm doing it. > > > > + dp_lanes = of_property_count_u32_elems(endpoint, "data-lanes"); > > > > + if (dp_lanes > 0) { > > > > + of_property_read_u32_array(endpoint, "data-lanes", > > > > + lane_assignments, dp_lanes); > > > > + of_property_read_u32_array(endpoint, "lane-polarities", > > > > + lane_polarities, dp_lanes); > > > > > > Similarly, with a buggy DT, you may have a buffer overrun here. I would > > > first check that dp_lanes <= SN_MAX_DP_LANES and error out otherwise. > > > > I will definitely add that. Buffer overrun is no bueno. > > > > > > + } else { > > > > + dp_lanes = SN_MAX_DP_LANES; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + /* > > > > + * Convert into register format. Loop over all lanes even if > > > > + * data-lanes had fewer elements so that we nicely initialize > > > > + * the LN_ASSIGN register. > > > > + */ > > > > + for (i = SN_MAX_DP_LANES - 1; i >= 0; i--) { > > > > + ln_assign = ln_assign << LN_ASSIGN_WIDTH | lane_assignments[i]; > > > > + ln_polrs = ln_polrs << 1 | lane_polarities[i]; > > > > + } > > > > > > The datasheet documents the lane remapping register as allowing pretty > > > much any combination, but "Table 12. Logical to Physical Supported > > > Combinations" only documents a subset (for instance data-lanes = <2 3> > > > isn't allowed in that table). Should we guard against invalid > > > configurations ? > > > > As I understand it, in general standard kernel policy is to not sanity > > check the DT _too_ much. This feels a bit on the border. It's up to > > the person designing the board and writing the dts to not get things > > like this wrong just like it's up to them to make sure they've setup > > the i2c pins for our bus w/ the right pullups, configured our > > interrupt properly, not overvolted things, put in the correct address > > for MMIO, etc. > > > > I wrote this code (untested) and it feels a bit much: > > > > if (dp_lanes == 1) { > > if (lane_assignments[0] == 1) { > > pr_warn("Lane 0 to physical pin 1 not suggested\n"); > > } else if (lane_assignments[0] != 0) { > > pr_err("Unsupported logical to physical pin mapping\n"); > > return -EINVAL; > > } > > } else if (dp_lanes == 2 || dp_lanes == 4) { > > u8 good_mask = dp_lanes == 2 ? 0x3 : 0xf; > > u8 mask = 0; > > > > for (i = 0; i < dp_lanes; i++) > > mask |= BIT(lane_assignments[i]) > > > > if (mask != good_mask) { > > pr_err("Unsupported logical to physical pin mapping\n"); > > return -EINVAL; > > } > > } else { > > pr_err("Invalid number of DP lanes: %d\n", dp_lanes); > > } > > > > If you feel strongly I'll add it to the next version. Does anyone > > else have any opinions of whether they'd like all that checking or > > whether we should just trust the person designing the hardware and > > writing the device tree to put the right values in? > > If we don't want to test that, I would at least document it in the DT > bindings. It will be a good occasion to switch the bindings to YAML ;-) Interesting that you bring this up. Conversion to yaml is sitting waiting to land (or additional review comments): https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200430124442.v4.4.Ifcdc4ecb12742a27862744ee1e8753cb95a38a7f@changeid/ I'll add this documentation into the comments of the yaml, but I'm not going to try to implement enforcement at the yaml level. -Doug
Hi Doug, On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 02:12:20PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 2:06 PM Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 10:59:30AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > >> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 1:24 AM Laurent Pinchart wrote: > >>> On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 09:36:31PM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote: > >>>> The ti-sn65dsi86 MIPI DSI to eDP bridge chip supports arbitrary > >>>> remapping of eDP lanes and also polarity inversion. Both of these > >>>> features have been described in the device tree bindings for the > >>>> device since the beginning but were never implemented in the driver. > >>>> Implement both of them. > >>>> > >>>> Part of this change also allows you to (via the same device tree > >>>> bindings) specify to use fewer than the max number of DP lanes that > >>>> the panel reports. This could be useful if your display supports more > >>>> lanes but only a few are hooked up on your board. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> > >>>> --- > >>>> This patch is based upon my my outstanding series[1] not because there > >>>> is any real requirement but simply to avoid merge conflicts. I > >>>> believe that my previous series is ready to land. If, however, you'd > >>>> prefer that I rebase this patch somewhere atop something else then > >>>> please shout. > >>>> > >>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200430194617.197510-1-dianders@chromium.org > >>>> > >>>> drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c | 75 ++++++++++++++++++++++----- > >>>> 1 file changed, 62 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > >>>> > >>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c > >>>> index 1a125423eb07..52cca54b525f 100644 > >>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c > >>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c > >>>> @@ -50,8 +50,12 @@ > >>>> #define SN_CHA_VERTICAL_BACK_PORCH_REG 0x36 > >>>> #define SN_CHA_HORIZONTAL_FRONT_PORCH_REG 0x38 > >>>> #define SN_CHA_VERTICAL_FRONT_PORCH_REG 0x3A > >>>> +#define SN_LN_ASSIGN_REG 0x59 > >>>> +#define LN_ASSIGN_WIDTH 2 > >>>> #define SN_ENH_FRAME_REG 0x5A > >>>> #define VSTREAM_ENABLE BIT(3) > >>>> +#define LN_POLRS_OFFSET 4 > >>>> +#define LN_POLRS_MASK 0xf0 > >>>> #define SN_DATA_FORMAT_REG 0x5B > >>>> #define BPP_18_RGB BIT(0) > >>>> #define SN_HPD_DISABLE_REG 0x5C > >>>> @@ -98,6 +102,7 @@ > >>>> > >>>> #define SN_REGULATOR_SUPPLY_NUM 4 > >>>> > >>>> +#define SN_MAX_DP_LANES 4 > >>>> #define SN_NUM_GPIOS 4 > >>>> > >>>> /** > >>>> @@ -115,6 +120,8 @@ > >>>> * @enable_gpio: The GPIO we toggle to enable the bridge. > >>>> * @supplies: Data for bulk enabling/disabling our regulators. > >>>> * @dp_lanes: Count of dp_lanes we're using. > >>>> + * @ln_assign: Value to program to the LN_ASSIGN register. > >>>> + * @ln_polr: Value for the 4-bit LN_POLRS field of SN_ENH_FRAME_REG. > >>>> * > >>>> * @gchip: If we expose our GPIOs, this is used. > >>>> * @gchip_output: A cache of whether we've set GPIOs to output. This > >>>> @@ -140,6 +147,8 @@ struct ti_sn_bridge { > >>>> struct gpio_desc *enable_gpio; > >>>> struct regulator_bulk_data supplies[SN_REGULATOR_SUPPLY_NUM]; > >>>> int dp_lanes; > >>>> + u8 ln_assign; > >>>> + u8 ln_polrs; > >>>> > >>>> struct gpio_chip gchip; > >>>> DECLARE_BITMAP(gchip_output, SN_NUM_GPIOS); > >>>> @@ -707,26 +716,20 @@ static void ti_sn_bridge_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge) > >>>> int dp_rate_idx; > >>>> unsigned int val; > >>>> int ret = -EINVAL; > >>>> + int max_dp_lanes; > >>>> > >>>> - /* > >>>> - * Run with the maximum number of lanes that the DP sink supports. > >>>> - * > >>>> - * Depending use cases, we might want to revisit this later because: > >>>> - * - It's plausible that someone may have run fewer lines to the > >>>> - * sink than the sink actually supports, assuming that the lines > >>>> - * will just be driven at a higher rate. > >>>> - * - The DP spec seems to indicate that it's more important to minimize > >>>> - * the number of lanes than the link rate. > >>>> - * > >>>> - * If we do revisit, it would be important to measure the power impact. > >>>> - */ > >>>> - pdata->dp_lanes = ti_sn_get_max_lanes(pdata); > >>>> + max_dp_lanes = ti_sn_get_max_lanes(pdata); > >>>> + pdata->dp_lanes = min(pdata->dp_lanes, max_dp_lanes); > >>>> > >>>> /* DSI_A lane config */ > >>>> val = CHA_DSI_LANES(4 - pdata->dsi->lanes); > >>>> regmap_update_bits(pdata->regmap, SN_DSI_LANES_REG, > >>>> CHA_DSI_LANES_MASK, val); > >>>> > >>>> + regmap_write(pdata->regmap, SN_LN_ASSIGN_REG, pdata->ln_assign); > >>>> + regmap_update_bits(pdata->regmap, SN_ENH_FRAME_REG, LN_POLRS_MASK, > >>>> + pdata->ln_polrs << LN_POLRS_OFFSET); > >>>> + > >>>> /* set dsi clk frequency value */ > >>>> ti_sn_bridge_set_dsi_rate(pdata); > >>>> > >>>> @@ -1063,6 +1066,50 @@ static int ti_sn_setup_gpio_controller(struct ti_sn_bridge *pdata) > >>>> return ret; > >>>> } > >>>> > >>>> +static void ti_sn_bridge_parse_lanes(struct ti_sn_bridge *pdata, > >>>> + struct device_node *np) > >>>> +{ > >>>> + u32 lane_assignments[SN_MAX_DP_LANES] = { 0, 1, 2, 3 }; > >>>> + u32 lane_polarities[SN_MAX_DP_LANES] = { }; > >>>> + struct device_node *endpoint; > >>>> + u8 ln_assign = 0; > >>>> + u8 ln_polrs = 0; > >>>> + int dp_lanes; > >>>> + int i; > >>>> + > >>>> + /* > >>>> + * Read config from the device tree about lane remapping and lane > >>>> + * polarities. These are optional and we assume identity map and > >>>> + * normal polarity if nothing is specified. It's OK to specify just > >>>> + * data-lanes but not lane-polarities but not vice versa. > >>>> + */ > >>>> + endpoint = of_graph_get_endpoint_by_regs(np, 1, -1); > >>> > >>> Shouldn't you check for endpoint == NULL and fail probe if it is ? > >> > >> I will if you feel strongly, but I don't think it's necessary. Specifically: > >> > >> 1. By design of_property_count_u32_elems() will return an error if > >> passed a NULL node pointer. > >> > >> 2. When we see an error this function will just init things to defaults. > >> > >> 3. Later code which really needs the endpoint to hook things up > >> properly will catch the error and yell. > >> > >> ...so while I could add a yell here it doesn't seem like it gains much. > > > > As long as it doesn't crash and we eventually catch the error I'm fine. > > I usually try to catch them early as otherwise it gets harder to make > > sure all code paths are sanitized. Up to you. > > OK, I'll leave it as-is for now unless someone else chimes in and puts > my opinion in the minority or unless you change your mind and decide > you really hate the way I'm doing it. > > > >>>> + dp_lanes = of_property_count_u32_elems(endpoint, "data-lanes"); > >>>> + if (dp_lanes > 0) { > >>>> + of_property_read_u32_array(endpoint, "data-lanes", > >>>> + lane_assignments, dp_lanes); > >>>> + of_property_read_u32_array(endpoint, "lane-polarities", > >>>> + lane_polarities, dp_lanes); > >>> > >>> Similarly, with a buggy DT, you may have a buffer overrun here. I would > >>> first check that dp_lanes <= SN_MAX_DP_LANES and error out otherwise. > >> > >> I will definitely add that. Buffer overrun is no bueno. > >> > >>>> + } else { > >>>> + dp_lanes = SN_MAX_DP_LANES; > >>>> + } > >>>> + > >>>> + /* > >>>> + * Convert into register format. Loop over all lanes even if > >>>> + * data-lanes had fewer elements so that we nicely initialize > >>>> + * the LN_ASSIGN register. > >>>> + */ > >>>> + for (i = SN_MAX_DP_LANES - 1; i >= 0; i--) { > >>>> + ln_assign = ln_assign << LN_ASSIGN_WIDTH | lane_assignments[i]; > >>>> + ln_polrs = ln_polrs << 1 | lane_polarities[i]; > >>>> + } > >>> > >>> The datasheet documents the lane remapping register as allowing pretty > >>> much any combination, but "Table 12. Logical to Physical Supported > >>> Combinations" only documents a subset (for instance data-lanes = <2 3> > >>> isn't allowed in that table). Should we guard against invalid > >>> configurations ? > >> > >> As I understand it, in general standard kernel policy is to not sanity > >> check the DT _too_ much. This feels a bit on the border. It's up to > >> the person designing the board and writing the dts to not get things > >> like this wrong just like it's up to them to make sure they've setup > >> the i2c pins for our bus w/ the right pullups, configured our > >> interrupt properly, not overvolted things, put in the correct address > >> for MMIO, etc. > >> > >> I wrote this code (untested) and it feels a bit much: > >> > >> if (dp_lanes == 1) { > >> if (lane_assignments[0] == 1) { > >> pr_warn("Lane 0 to physical pin 1 not suggested\n"); > >> } else if (lane_assignments[0] != 0) { > >> pr_err("Unsupported logical to physical pin mapping\n"); > >> return -EINVAL; > >> } > >> } else if (dp_lanes == 2 || dp_lanes == 4) { > >> u8 good_mask = dp_lanes == 2 ? 0x3 : 0xf; > >> u8 mask = 0; > >> > >> for (i = 0; i < dp_lanes; i++) > >> mask |= BIT(lane_assignments[i]) > >> > >> if (mask != good_mask) { > >> pr_err("Unsupported logical to physical pin mapping\n"); > >> return -EINVAL; > >> } > >> } else { > >> pr_err("Invalid number of DP lanes: %d\n", dp_lanes); > >> } > >> > >> If you feel strongly I'll add it to the next version. Does anyone > >> else have any opinions of whether they'd like all that checking or > >> whether we should just trust the person designing the hardware and > >> writing the device tree to put the right values in? > > > > If we don't want to test that, I would at least document it in the DT > > bindings. It will be a good occasion to switch the bindings to YAML ;-) > > Interesting that you bring this up. Conversion to yaml is sitting > waiting to land (or additional review comments): > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200430124442.v4.4.Ifcdc4ecb12742a27862744ee1e8753cb95a38a7f@changeid/ I'll have a look. > I'll add this documentation into the comments of the yaml, but I'm not > going to try to implement enforcement at the yaml level. Why not ? :-)
Hi Dough. > > > > If we don't want to test that, I would at least document it in the DT > > bindings. It will be a good occasion to switch the bindings to YAML ;-) > > Interesting that you bring this up. Conversion to yaml is sitting > waiting to land (or additional review comments): > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200430124442.v4.4.Ifcdc4ecb12742a27862744ee1e8753cb95a38a7f@changeid/ Whole series is on my TODO list. But it needs a few hours so do not expect anything until the weekend. Sam
Hi, On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 2:14 PM Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> wrote: > > > I'll add this documentation into the comments of the yaml, but I'm not > > going to try to implement enforcement at the yaml level. > > Why not ? :-) Because trying to describe anything in the yaml bindings that doesn't fit in the exact pattern of things that the yaml bindings are designed to check is like constructing the empire state building with only toothpicks. If you want to suggest some syntax that would actually make this doable without blowing out the yaml bindings then I'm happy to add it. Me being naive would assume that we'd need to do an exhaustive list of the OK combinations. That would be fine for the 1-land and 2-lane cases, but for 4 lanes that means adding 256 entries to the bindings. I think the correct way to do this would require adding code in the <https://github.com/devicetree-org/dt-schema> project but that's really only done for generic subsystem-level concepts and not for a single driver. -Doug
Hi, On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 2:21 PM Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org> wrote: > > Hi Dough. > > > > > > > If we don't want to test that, I would at least document it in the DT > > > bindings. It will be a good occasion to switch the bindings to YAML ;-) > > > > Interesting that you bring this up. Conversion to yaml is sitting > > waiting to land (or additional review comments): > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200430124442.v4.4.Ifcdc4ecb12742a27862744ee1e8753cb95a38a7f@changeid/ > > Whole series is on my TODO list. > But it needs a few hours so do not expect anything until the weekend. No problem. I know how hard it is to find time for big chunks like this. I'll hope for something next week. :-) -Doug
Hi, On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 2:24 PM Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 2:14 PM Laurent Pinchart > <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> wrote: > > > > > I'll add this documentation into the comments of the yaml, but I'm not > > > going to try to implement enforcement at the yaml level. > > > > Why not ? :-) > > Because trying to describe anything in the yaml bindings that doesn't > fit in the exact pattern of things that the yaml bindings are designed > to check is like constructing the empire state building with only > toothpicks. > > If you want to suggest some syntax that would actually make this > doable without blowing out the yaml bindings then I'm happy to add it. > Me being naive would assume that we'd need to do an exhaustive list of > the OK combinations. That would be fine for the 1-land and 2-lane > cases, but for 4 lanes that means adding 256 entries to the bindings. > > I think the correct way to do this would require adding code in the > <https://github.com/devicetree-org/dt-schema> project but that's > really only done for generic subsystem-level concepts and not for a > single driver. OK. Looked at your review of the .yaml and the "uniqueItems" is probably the bit I didn't think of. With that I can limit this but it's still a little awkward. I still haven't figured out how to force data-lanes and lane-polarities to have the same number of items, too. I'll add this as an add-on patch to my v2 and folks can decide if they like it or hate it. # See ../../media/video-interface.txt for details. data-lanes: oneOf: - minItems: 1 maxItems: 1 uniqueItems: true items: enum: - 0 - 1 description: If you have 1 logical lane it can go to either physical port 0 or port 1. Port 0 is suggested. - minItems: 2 maxItems: 2 uniqueItems: true items: enum: - 0 - 1 description: If you have 2 logical lanes they can be reordered on physical ports 0 and 1. - minItems: 4 maxItems: 4 uniqueItems: true items: enum: - 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 description: If you have 4 logical lanes they can be reordered on in any way. -Doug
Hi Doug, On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 05:18:48PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 2:24 PM Doug Anderson wrote: > > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 2:14 PM Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > > > > > I'll add this documentation into the comments of the yaml, but I'm not > > > > going to try to implement enforcement at the yaml level. > > > > > > Why not ? :-) > > > > Because trying to describe anything in the yaml bindings that doesn't > > fit in the exact pattern of things that the yaml bindings are designed > > to check is like constructing the empire state building with only > > toothpicks. > > > > If you want to suggest some syntax that would actually make this > > doable without blowing out the yaml bindings then I'm happy to add it. > > Me being naive would assume that we'd need to do an exhaustive list of > > the OK combinations. That would be fine for the 1-land and 2-lane > > cases, but for 4 lanes that means adding 256 entries to the bindings. > > > > I think the correct way to do this would require adding code in the > > <https://github.com/devicetree-org/dt-schema> project but that's > > really only done for generic subsystem-level concepts and not for a > > single driver. > > OK. Looked at your review of the .yaml and the "uniqueItems" is > probably the bit I didn't think of. With that I can limit this but > it's still a little awkward. I still haven't figured out how to force > data-lanes and lane-polarities to have the same number of items, too. > I'll add this as an add-on patch to my v2 and folks can decide if they > like it or hate it. Thanks for looking into it. Looks good to me. Regarding the same number of items I would assume it should be possible, I would be surprised if the schemas allowed a different number of items for clocks and clock-names for instance, but maybe that's not implemented yet. In any case, no big deal. > # See ../../media/video-interface.txt for details. > data-lanes: > oneOf: > - minItems: 1 > maxItems: 1 > uniqueItems: true > items: > enum: > - 0 > - 1 > description: > If you have 1 logical lane it can go to either physical > port 0 or port 1. Port 0 is suggested. > > - minItems: 2 > maxItems: 2 > uniqueItems: true > items: > enum: > - 0 > - 1 > description: > If you have 2 logical lanes they can be reordered on > physical ports 0 and 1. > > - minItems: 4 > maxItems: 4 > uniqueItems: true > items: > enum: > - 0 > - 1 > - 2 > - 3 > description: > If you have 4 logical lanes they can be reordered on > in any way.
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c index 1a125423eb07..52cca54b525f 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c @@ -50,8 +50,12 @@ #define SN_CHA_VERTICAL_BACK_PORCH_REG 0x36 #define SN_CHA_HORIZONTAL_FRONT_PORCH_REG 0x38 #define SN_CHA_VERTICAL_FRONT_PORCH_REG 0x3A +#define SN_LN_ASSIGN_REG 0x59 +#define LN_ASSIGN_WIDTH 2 #define SN_ENH_FRAME_REG 0x5A #define VSTREAM_ENABLE BIT(3) +#define LN_POLRS_OFFSET 4 +#define LN_POLRS_MASK 0xf0 #define SN_DATA_FORMAT_REG 0x5B #define BPP_18_RGB BIT(0) #define SN_HPD_DISABLE_REG 0x5C @@ -98,6 +102,7 @@ #define SN_REGULATOR_SUPPLY_NUM 4 +#define SN_MAX_DP_LANES 4 #define SN_NUM_GPIOS 4 /** @@ -115,6 +120,8 @@ * @enable_gpio: The GPIO we toggle to enable the bridge. * @supplies: Data for bulk enabling/disabling our regulators. * @dp_lanes: Count of dp_lanes we're using. + * @ln_assign: Value to program to the LN_ASSIGN register. + * @ln_polr: Value for the 4-bit LN_POLRS field of SN_ENH_FRAME_REG. * * @gchip: If we expose our GPIOs, this is used. * @gchip_output: A cache of whether we've set GPIOs to output. This @@ -140,6 +147,8 @@ struct ti_sn_bridge { struct gpio_desc *enable_gpio; struct regulator_bulk_data supplies[SN_REGULATOR_SUPPLY_NUM]; int dp_lanes; + u8 ln_assign; + u8 ln_polrs; struct gpio_chip gchip; DECLARE_BITMAP(gchip_output, SN_NUM_GPIOS); @@ -707,26 +716,20 @@ static void ti_sn_bridge_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge) int dp_rate_idx; unsigned int val; int ret = -EINVAL; + int max_dp_lanes; - /* - * Run with the maximum number of lanes that the DP sink supports. - * - * Depending use cases, we might want to revisit this later because: - * - It's plausible that someone may have run fewer lines to the - * sink than the sink actually supports, assuming that the lines - * will just be driven at a higher rate. - * - The DP spec seems to indicate that it's more important to minimize - * the number of lanes than the link rate. - * - * If we do revisit, it would be important to measure the power impact. - */ - pdata->dp_lanes = ti_sn_get_max_lanes(pdata); + max_dp_lanes = ti_sn_get_max_lanes(pdata); + pdata->dp_lanes = min(pdata->dp_lanes, max_dp_lanes); /* DSI_A lane config */ val = CHA_DSI_LANES(4 - pdata->dsi->lanes); regmap_update_bits(pdata->regmap, SN_DSI_LANES_REG, CHA_DSI_LANES_MASK, val); + regmap_write(pdata->regmap, SN_LN_ASSIGN_REG, pdata->ln_assign); + regmap_update_bits(pdata->regmap, SN_ENH_FRAME_REG, LN_POLRS_MASK, + pdata->ln_polrs << LN_POLRS_OFFSET); + /* set dsi clk frequency value */ ti_sn_bridge_set_dsi_rate(pdata); @@ -1063,6 +1066,50 @@ static int ti_sn_setup_gpio_controller(struct ti_sn_bridge *pdata) return ret; } +static void ti_sn_bridge_parse_lanes(struct ti_sn_bridge *pdata, + struct device_node *np) +{ + u32 lane_assignments[SN_MAX_DP_LANES] = { 0, 1, 2, 3 }; + u32 lane_polarities[SN_MAX_DP_LANES] = { }; + struct device_node *endpoint; + u8 ln_assign = 0; + u8 ln_polrs = 0; + int dp_lanes; + int i; + + /* + * Read config from the device tree about lane remapping and lane + * polarities. These are optional and we assume identity map and + * normal polarity if nothing is specified. It's OK to specify just + * data-lanes but not lane-polarities but not vice versa. + */ + endpoint = of_graph_get_endpoint_by_regs(np, 1, -1); + dp_lanes = of_property_count_u32_elems(endpoint, "data-lanes"); + if (dp_lanes > 0) { + of_property_read_u32_array(endpoint, "data-lanes", + lane_assignments, dp_lanes); + of_property_read_u32_array(endpoint, "lane-polarities", + lane_polarities, dp_lanes); + } else { + dp_lanes = SN_MAX_DP_LANES; + } + + /* + * Convert into register format. Loop over all lanes even if + * data-lanes had fewer elements so that we nicely initialize + * the LN_ASSIGN register. + */ + for (i = SN_MAX_DP_LANES - 1; i >= 0; i--) { + ln_assign = ln_assign << LN_ASSIGN_WIDTH | lane_assignments[i]; + ln_polrs = ln_polrs << 1 | lane_polarities[i]; + } + + /* Stash in our struct for when we power on */ + pdata->dp_lanes = dp_lanes; + pdata->ln_assign = ln_assign; + pdata->ln_polrs = ln_polrs; +} + static int ti_sn_bridge_probe(struct i2c_client *client, const struct i2c_device_id *id) { @@ -1105,6 +1152,8 @@ static int ti_sn_bridge_probe(struct i2c_client *client, return ret; } + ti_sn_bridge_parse_lanes(pdata, client->dev.of_node); + ret = ti_sn_bridge_parse_regulators(pdata); if (ret) { DRM_ERROR("failed to parse regulators\n");
The ti-sn65dsi86 MIPI DSI to eDP bridge chip supports arbitrary remapping of eDP lanes and also polarity inversion. Both of these features have been described in the device tree bindings for the device since the beginning but were never implemented in the driver. Implement both of them. Part of this change also allows you to (via the same device tree bindings) specify to use fewer than the max number of DP lanes that the panel reports. This could be useful if your display supports more lanes but only a few are hooked up on your board. Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> --- This patch is based upon my my outstanding series[1] not because there is any real requirement but simply to avoid merge conflicts. I believe that my previous series is ready to land. If, however, you'd prefer that I rebase this patch somewhere atop something else then please shout. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200430194617.197510-1-dianders@chromium.org drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c | 75 ++++++++++++++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 62 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)