Message ID | 20240501154251.3302887-1-dianders@chromium.org (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | drm/mipi-dsi: Reduce bloat and add funcs for cleaner init seqs | expand |
Hi, On 01/05/2024 17:41, Douglas Anderson wrote: > The consensus of many DRM folks is that we want to move away from DSI > drivers defining tables of init commands. Instead, we want to move to > init functions that can use common DRM functions. The issue thus far > has been that using the macros mipi_dsi_generic_write_seq() and > mipi_dsi_dcs_write_seq() bloats the driver using them. > > While trying to solve bloat, we realized that the majority of the it > was easy to solve. This series solves the bloat for existing drivers > by moving the printout outside of the macro. > > During discussion of my v1 patch to fix the bloat [1], we also decided > that we really want to change the way that drivers deal with init > sequences to make it clearer. In addition to being cleaner, a side > effect of moving drivers to the new style reduces bloat _even more_. > > This series also contains a few minor fixes / cleanups that I found > along the way. > > This series converts four drivers over to the new > mipi_dsi_dcs_write_seq_multi() function. Not all conversions have been > tested, but hopefully they are straightforward enough. I'd appreciate > testing. > > NOTE: In v3 I tried to incorporate the feedback from v2. I also > converted the other two panels I could find that used table-based > initialization. > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240424172017.1.Id15fae80582bc74a0d4f1338987fa375738f45b9@changeid > > Changes in v3: > - ("mipi_dsi_*_write functions don't need to ratelimit...") moved earlier. > - Add a TODO item for cleaning up the deprecated macros/functions. > - Fix spacing of init function. > - Inline kerneldoc comments for struct mipi_dsi_multi_context. > - Rebased upon patch to remove ratelimit of prints. > - Remove an unneeded error print. > - Squash boe-tv101wum-nl6 lowercase patch into main patch > - Use %zd in print instead of casting errors to int. > - drm/panel: ili9882t: Don't use a table for initting panels > - drm/panel: innolux-p079zca: Don't use a table for initting panels > > Changes in v2: > - Add some comments to the macros about printing and returning. > - Change the way err value is handled in prep for next patch. > - Modify commit message now that this is part of a series. > - Rebased upon patches to avoid theoretical int overflow. > - drm/mipi-dsi: Fix theoretical int overflow in mipi_dsi_dcs_write_seq() > - drm/mipi-dsi: Fix theoretical int overflow in mipi_dsi_generic_write_seq() > - drm/mipi-dsi: Introduce mipi_dsi_*_write_seq_multi() > - drm/mipi-dsi: mipi_dsi_*_write functions don't need to ratelimit prints > - drm/panel: boe-tv101wum-nl6: Convert hex to lowercase > - drm/panel: boe-tv101wum-nl6: Don't use a table for initting commands > - drm/panel: novatek-nt36672e: Switch to mipi_dsi_dcs_write_seq_multi() > > Douglas Anderson (9): > drm/mipi-dsi: Fix theoretical int overflow in mipi_dsi_dcs_write_seq() > drm/mipi-dsi: Fix theoretical int overflow in > mipi_dsi_generic_write_seq() > drm/mipi-dsi: mipi_dsi_*_write functions don't need to ratelimit > prints > drm/mipi-dsi: Reduce driver bloat of mipi_dsi_*_write_seq() > drm/mipi-dsi: Introduce mipi_dsi_*_write_seq_multi() > drm/panel: novatek-nt36672e: Switch to mipi_dsi_dcs_write_seq_multi() > drm/panel: boe-tv101wum-nl6: Don't use a table for initting panels > drm/panel: ili9882t: Don't use a table for initting panels > drm/panel: innolux-p079zca: Don't use a table for initting panels Thanks Doug! I think we all agree on the core changes, now I think we can wait a few weeks and try to get some test feedbacks on the indirectly and directly affected panels, drm-misc-next won't be merged into linux-next until v6.10-rc1 anyway so we have some time to test on our boards. Neil > > Documentation/gpu/todo.rst | 18 + > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_mipi_dsi.c | 112 + > .../gpu/drm/panel/panel-boe-tv101wum-nl6.c | 2792 +++++++++-------- > drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-ilitek-ili9882t.c | 794 +++-- > drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-innolux-p079zca.c | 284 +- > .../gpu/drm/panel/panel-novatek-nt36672e.c | 576 ++-- > include/drm/drm_mipi_dsi.h | 101 +- > 7 files changed, 2451 insertions(+), 2226 deletions(-) >
Hi, On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 12:48 AM Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 01/05/2024 17:41, Douglas Anderson wrote: > > The consensus of many DRM folks is that we want to move away from DSI > > drivers defining tables of init commands. Instead, we want to move to > > init functions that can use common DRM functions. The issue thus far > > has been that using the macros mipi_dsi_generic_write_seq() and > > mipi_dsi_dcs_write_seq() bloats the driver using them. > > > > While trying to solve bloat, we realized that the majority of the it > > was easy to solve. This series solves the bloat for existing drivers > > by moving the printout outside of the macro. > > > > During discussion of my v1 patch to fix the bloat [1], we also decided > > that we really want to change the way that drivers deal with init > > sequences to make it clearer. In addition to being cleaner, a side > > effect of moving drivers to the new style reduces bloat _even more_. > > > > This series also contains a few minor fixes / cleanups that I found > > along the way. > > > > This series converts four drivers over to the new > > mipi_dsi_dcs_write_seq_multi() function. Not all conversions have been > > tested, but hopefully they are straightforward enough. I'd appreciate > > testing. > > > > NOTE: In v3 I tried to incorporate the feedback from v2. I also > > converted the other two panels I could find that used table-based > > initialization. > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240424172017.1.Id15fae80582bc74a0d4f1338987fa375738f45b9@changeid > > > > Changes in v3: > > - ("mipi_dsi_*_write functions don't need to ratelimit...") moved earlier. > > - Add a TODO item for cleaning up the deprecated macros/functions. > > - Fix spacing of init function. > > - Inline kerneldoc comments for struct mipi_dsi_multi_context. > > - Rebased upon patch to remove ratelimit of prints. > > - Remove an unneeded error print. > > - Squash boe-tv101wum-nl6 lowercase patch into main patch > > - Use %zd in print instead of casting errors to int. > > - drm/panel: ili9882t: Don't use a table for initting panels > > - drm/panel: innolux-p079zca: Don't use a table for initting panels > > > > Changes in v2: > > - Add some comments to the macros about printing and returning. > > - Change the way err value is handled in prep for next patch. > > - Modify commit message now that this is part of a series. > > - Rebased upon patches to avoid theoretical int overflow. > > - drm/mipi-dsi: Fix theoretical int overflow in mipi_dsi_dcs_write_seq() > > - drm/mipi-dsi: Fix theoretical int overflow in mipi_dsi_generic_write_seq() > > - drm/mipi-dsi: Introduce mipi_dsi_*_write_seq_multi() > > - drm/mipi-dsi: mipi_dsi_*_write functions don't need to ratelimit prints > > - drm/panel: boe-tv101wum-nl6: Convert hex to lowercase > > - drm/panel: boe-tv101wum-nl6: Don't use a table for initting commands > > - drm/panel: novatek-nt36672e: Switch to mipi_dsi_dcs_write_seq_multi() > > > > Douglas Anderson (9): > > drm/mipi-dsi: Fix theoretical int overflow in mipi_dsi_dcs_write_seq() > > drm/mipi-dsi: Fix theoretical int overflow in > > mipi_dsi_generic_write_seq() > > drm/mipi-dsi: mipi_dsi_*_write functions don't need to ratelimit > > prints > > drm/mipi-dsi: Reduce driver bloat of mipi_dsi_*_write_seq() > > drm/mipi-dsi: Introduce mipi_dsi_*_write_seq_multi() > > drm/panel: novatek-nt36672e: Switch to mipi_dsi_dcs_write_seq_multi() > > drm/panel: boe-tv101wum-nl6: Don't use a table for initting panels > > drm/panel: ili9882t: Don't use a table for initting panels > > drm/panel: innolux-p079zca: Don't use a table for initting panels > > Thanks Doug! > > I think we all agree on the core changes, now I think we can wait a few weeks > and try to get some test feedbacks on the indirectly and directly affected > panels, drm-misc-next won't be merged into linux-next until v6.10-rc1 anyway > so we have some time to test on our boards. Great! Just to be clear, are you suggesting that we leave these patches on the lists for a few weeks before landing in drm-misc-next, or are you suggesting that it's safe to land them in drm-misc-next because it won't make it to linuxnext for a while anyway? I assume the former (AKA leave it on the lists for a while) but just want to be clear. ;-) There's nothing terribly urgent about these patches except that they are blocking Cong Yang's patch series [0] and lvzhaoxiong's patch series [1]. I think it would be fine for them to send out their patch series with mine marked as a dependency so we can finish reviewing their series and then when mine lands theirs will be good to go too. Maybe we can aim for 2 weeks of stewing on the list if there are no issues during that time? I know landing in drm-misc during this time won't help get into mainline faster, but with ChromeOS's "upstream first" policy it saves us a bunch of headache if we can land things in our tree from a maintainer tree with stable git hashes (like drm-misc-next) instead of landing from a mailing list. Certainly that doesn't mean we want to rush patches in before they're ready, but I just want to say that there is still some benefit in getting the patches landed sooner rather than later. :-) [0] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240424023010.2099949-1-yangcong5@huaqin.corp-partner.google.com [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240418081548.12160-3-lvzhaoxiong@huaqin.corp-partner.google.com
On 02/05/2024 16:27, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 12:48 AM Neil Armstrong > <neil.armstrong@linaro.org> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On 01/05/2024 17:41, Douglas Anderson wrote: >>> The consensus of many DRM folks is that we want to move away from DSI >>> drivers defining tables of init commands. Instead, we want to move to >>> init functions that can use common DRM functions. The issue thus far >>> has been that using the macros mipi_dsi_generic_write_seq() and >>> mipi_dsi_dcs_write_seq() bloats the driver using them. >>> >>> While trying to solve bloat, we realized that the majority of the it >>> was easy to solve. This series solves the bloat for existing drivers >>> by moving the printout outside of the macro. >>> >>> During discussion of my v1 patch to fix the bloat [1], we also decided >>> that we really want to change the way that drivers deal with init >>> sequences to make it clearer. In addition to being cleaner, a side >>> effect of moving drivers to the new style reduces bloat _even more_. >>> >>> This series also contains a few minor fixes / cleanups that I found >>> along the way. >>> >>> This series converts four drivers over to the new >>> mipi_dsi_dcs_write_seq_multi() function. Not all conversions have been >>> tested, but hopefully they are straightforward enough. I'd appreciate >>> testing. >>> >>> NOTE: In v3 I tried to incorporate the feedback from v2. I also >>> converted the other two panels I could find that used table-based >>> initialization. >>> >>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240424172017.1.Id15fae80582bc74a0d4f1338987fa375738f45b9@changeid >>> >>> Changes in v3: >>> - ("mipi_dsi_*_write functions don't need to ratelimit...") moved earlier. >>> - Add a TODO item for cleaning up the deprecated macros/functions. >>> - Fix spacing of init function. >>> - Inline kerneldoc comments for struct mipi_dsi_multi_context. >>> - Rebased upon patch to remove ratelimit of prints. >>> - Remove an unneeded error print. >>> - Squash boe-tv101wum-nl6 lowercase patch into main patch >>> - Use %zd in print instead of casting errors to int. >>> - drm/panel: ili9882t: Don't use a table for initting panels >>> - drm/panel: innolux-p079zca: Don't use a table for initting panels >>> >>> Changes in v2: >>> - Add some comments to the macros about printing and returning. >>> - Change the way err value is handled in prep for next patch. >>> - Modify commit message now that this is part of a series. >>> - Rebased upon patches to avoid theoretical int overflow. >>> - drm/mipi-dsi: Fix theoretical int overflow in mipi_dsi_dcs_write_seq() >>> - drm/mipi-dsi: Fix theoretical int overflow in mipi_dsi_generic_write_seq() >>> - drm/mipi-dsi: Introduce mipi_dsi_*_write_seq_multi() >>> - drm/mipi-dsi: mipi_dsi_*_write functions don't need to ratelimit prints >>> - drm/panel: boe-tv101wum-nl6: Convert hex to lowercase >>> - drm/panel: boe-tv101wum-nl6: Don't use a table for initting commands >>> - drm/panel: novatek-nt36672e: Switch to mipi_dsi_dcs_write_seq_multi() >>> >>> Douglas Anderson (9): >>> drm/mipi-dsi: Fix theoretical int overflow in mipi_dsi_dcs_write_seq() >>> drm/mipi-dsi: Fix theoretical int overflow in >>> mipi_dsi_generic_write_seq() >>> drm/mipi-dsi: mipi_dsi_*_write functions don't need to ratelimit >>> prints >>> drm/mipi-dsi: Reduce driver bloat of mipi_dsi_*_write_seq() >>> drm/mipi-dsi: Introduce mipi_dsi_*_write_seq_multi() >>> drm/panel: novatek-nt36672e: Switch to mipi_dsi_dcs_write_seq_multi() >>> drm/panel: boe-tv101wum-nl6: Don't use a table for initting panels >>> drm/panel: ili9882t: Don't use a table for initting panels >>> drm/panel: innolux-p079zca: Don't use a table for initting panels >> >> Thanks Doug! >> >> I think we all agree on the core changes, now I think we can wait a few weeks >> and try to get some test feedbacks on the indirectly and directly affected >> panels, drm-misc-next won't be merged into linux-next until v6.10-rc1 anyway >> so we have some time to test on our boards. > > Great! > > Just to be clear, are you suggesting that we leave these patches on > the lists for a few weeks before landing in drm-misc-next, or are you > suggesting that it's safe to land them in drm-misc-next because it > won't make it to linuxnext for a while anyway? I assume the former > (AKA leave it on the lists for a while) but just want to be clear. ;-) Yes you assume right > > There's nothing terribly urgent about these patches except that they > are blocking Cong Yang's patch series [0] and lvzhaoxiong's patch > series [1]. I think it would be fine for them to send out their patch > series with mine marked as a dependency so we can finish reviewing > their series and then when mine lands theirs will be good to go too. > > Maybe we can aim for 2 weeks of stewing on the list if there are no > issues during that time? I know landing in drm-misc during this time > won't help get into mainline faster, but with ChromeOS's "upstream > first" policy it saves us a bunch of headache if we can land things in > our tree from a maintainer tree with stable git hashes (like > drm-misc-next) instead of landing from a mailing list. Certainly that > doesn't mean we want to rush patches in before they're ready, but I > just want to say that there is still some benefit in getting the > patches landed sooner rather than later. :-) Yes let's wait 2 weeks and apply them Neil > > [0] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240424023010.2099949-1-yangcong5@huaqin.corp-partner.google.com > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240418081548.12160-3-lvzhaoxiong@huaqin.corp-partner.google.com