| Message ID | 20231207081801.4049075-5-treapking@chromium.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Support panels used by MT8173 Chromebooks in edp-panel | expand |
Hi, On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 12:18 AM Pin-yen Lin <treapking@chromium.org> wrote: > > These panels are used by Mediatek MT8173 Chromebooks but we can't find > the corresponding data sheets, and these panels used to work on v4.19 > kernel without any specified delays. > > Therefore, instead of having them use the default conservative timings, > update them with less-conservative timings from other panels of the same > vendor. The panels should still work under those timings, and we can > save some delays and suppress the warnings. > > Signed-off-by: Pin-yen Lin <treapking@chromium.org> > > --- > > (no changes since v1) > > drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-edp.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+) Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> Repeating my comments from v1 here too, since I expect this patch to sit on the lists for a little while: This is OK w/ me, but it will need time on the mailing lists before landing in case anyone else has opinions. Specifical thoughts: * I at least feel fairly confident that this is OK since these panels essentially booted without _any_ delays back on the old downstream v4.19 kernel. Presumably the panels just had fairly robust timing controllers and so worked OK, but it's better to get the timing more correct. * This is definitely better than the very conservative timings and the WARN_ON splat. * I don't love the "Unknown" string, but it doesn't do anything other than print to dmesg anyway and at least it conveys to anyone else reading the table that the timings may not be quite as tight.
On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 10:23:53AM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 12:18 AM Pin-yen Lin <treapking@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > These panels are used by Mediatek MT8173 Chromebooks but we can't find > > the corresponding data sheets, and these panels used to work on v4.19 > > kernel without any specified delays. > > > > Therefore, instead of having them use the default conservative timings, > > update them with less-conservative timings from other panels of the same > > vendor. The panels should still work under those timings, and we can > > save some delays and suppress the warnings. > > > > Signed-off-by: Pin-yen Lin <treapking@chromium.org> > > > > --- > > > > (no changes since v1) > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-edp.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+) > > Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> > > Repeating my comments from v1 here too, since I expect this patch to > sit on the lists for a little while: > > > This is OK w/ me, but it will need time on the mailing lists before > landing in case anyone else has opinions. Generally speaking, I'm not really a fan of big patches that dump whatever ChromeOS is doing ... > Specifical thoughts: > > * I at least feel fairly confident that this is OK since these panels > essentially booted without _any_ delays back on the old downstream > v4.19 kernel. Presumably the panels just had fairly robust timing > controllers and so worked OK, but it's better to get the timing more > correct. ... especially since you have to rely on the recollection of engineers involved at the time and you have no real way to test and make things clearer anymore, and we have to take patches in that are handwavy "trust us, it's doing the right thing". I'd really prefer to have these patches sent as they are found out. Also, the fact that the 4.19 kernel mentionned in the commit log is actually a downstream tree needs to be made much clearer. Maxime
Hi, On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 10:58 AM Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 10:23:53AM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 12:18 AM Pin-yen Lin <treapking@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > These panels are used by Mediatek MT8173 Chromebooks but we can't find > > > the corresponding data sheets, and these panels used to work on v4.19 > > > kernel without any specified delays. > > > > > > Therefore, instead of having them use the default conservative timings, > > > update them with less-conservative timings from other panels of the same > > > vendor. The panels should still work under those timings, and we can > > > save some delays and suppress the warnings. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Pin-yen Lin <treapking@chromium.org> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > (no changes since v1) > > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-edp.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+) > > > > Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> > > > > Repeating my comments from v1 here too, since I expect this patch to > > sit on the lists for a little while: > > > > > > This is OK w/ me, but it will need time on the mailing lists before > > landing in case anyone else has opinions. > > Generally speaking, I'm not really a fan of big patches that dump > whatever ChromeOS is doing ... > > > Specifical thoughts: > > > > * I at least feel fairly confident that this is OK since these panels > > essentially booted without _any_ delays back on the old downstream > > v4.19 kernel. Presumably the panels just had fairly robust timing > > controllers and so worked OK, but it's better to get the timing more > > correct. > > ... especially since you have to rely on the recollection of engineers > involved at the time and you have no real way to test and make things > clearer anymore, and we have to take patches in that are handwavy "trust > us, it's doing the right thing". > > I'd really prefer to have these patches sent as they are found out. It's probably not clear enough from the commit message, but this isn't just a dump from downstream 4.19. What happened was: 1. Downstream chromeos-4.19 used the "little white lie" approach. They all claimed a specific panel's compatible string even though there were a whole pile of panels out there actually being used. Personally, this was not something I was ever a fan of (and I wasn't personally involved in this project), but it was the "state of the art" before the generic panel-edp. Getting out of the "little white lie" situation was why I spent so much time on the generic edp-panel solution upstream. 2. These devices have now been uprevved to a newer kernel and I believe that there were issues seen that necessitated a move to the proper generic panel-edp code. 3. We are now getting field reports from our warning collector about a whole pile of panels that are falling back to the "conservative" timings, which means that they turn on/off much more slowly than they should. Pin-yen made an attempt to search for panels data sheets that matched up with the IDs that came in from the field reports but there were some panels that he just couldn't find. So basically we're stuck. Options: 1. Leave customers who have these panels stuck with the hardware behaving worse than it used to. This is not acceptable to me. 2. Land Pin-yen's patch as a downstream-only patch in ChromeOS. This would solve the problem, but it would make me sad. If anyone ever wants to take these old laptops and run some other Linux distribution on them (and there are several that target old Chromebooks) then they'd be again stuck with old timings. 3. Land a patch like this one that at least gets us into not such a bad shape. While I don't love this patch (and that's why I made it clear that it needs to spend time on the list), it seems better than the alternatives. Do you have a proposal for something else? If not, can you confirm you're OK with #3 given this explanation? ...and perhaps more details in the commit message? I would also note that, hopefully, patches like this shouldn't be a recurring pattern. Any new Chromebooks using panel-edp will get flagged much earlier and we should be able to get real/proper timings added. I believe that we've also added a factory test so that (assuming it doesn't get ignored by someone) devices that aren't supported don't even make it out of the factory. > Also, the fact that the 4.19 kernel mentionned in the commit log is > actually a downstream tree needs to be made much clearer. Yeah, that would help too.
On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 11:14:34AM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 10:58 AM Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 10:23:53AM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 12:18 AM Pin-yen Lin <treapking@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > These panels are used by Mediatek MT8173 Chromebooks but we can't find > > > > the corresponding data sheets, and these panels used to work on v4.19 > > > > kernel without any specified delays. > > > > > > > > Therefore, instead of having them use the default conservative timings, > > > > update them with less-conservative timings from other panels of the same > > > > vendor. The panels should still work under those timings, and we can > > > > save some delays and suppress the warnings. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Pin-yen Lin <treapking@chromium.org> > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > (no changes since v1) > > > > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-edp.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+) > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> > > > > > > Repeating my comments from v1 here too, since I expect this patch to > > > sit on the lists for a little while: > > > > > > > > > This is OK w/ me, but it will need time on the mailing lists before > > > landing in case anyone else has opinions. > > > > Generally speaking, I'm not really a fan of big patches that dump > > whatever ChromeOS is doing ... > > > > > Specifical thoughts: > > > > > > * I at least feel fairly confident that this is OK since these panels > > > essentially booted without _any_ delays back on the old downstream > > > v4.19 kernel. Presumably the panels just had fairly robust timing > > > controllers and so worked OK, but it's better to get the timing more > > > correct. > > > > ... especially since you have to rely on the recollection of engineers > > involved at the time and you have no real way to test and make things > > clearer anymore, and we have to take patches in that are handwavy "trust > > us, it's doing the right thing". > > > > I'd really prefer to have these patches sent as they are found out. > > It's probably not clear enough from the commit message, but this isn't > just a dump from downstream 4.19. What happened was: > > 1. Downstream chromeos-4.19 used the "little white lie" approach. They > all claimed a specific panel's compatible string even though there > were a whole pile of panels out there actually being used. Personally, > this was not something I was ever a fan of (and I wasn't personally > involved in this project), but it was the "state of the art" before > the generic panel-edp. Getting out of the "little white lie" situation > was why I spent so much time on the generic edp-panel solution > upstream. > > 2. These devices have now been uprevved to a newer kernel and I > believe that there were issues seen that necessitated a move to the > proper generic panel-edp code. > > 3. We are now getting field reports from our warning collector about a > whole pile of panels that are falling back to the "conservative" > timings, which means that they turn on/off much more slowly than they > should. > > Pin-yen made an attempt to search for panels data sheets that matched > up with the IDs that came in from the field reports but there were > some panels that he just couldn't find. > > So basically we're stuck. Options: > > 1. Leave customers who have these panels stuck with the hardware > behaving worse than it used to. This is not acceptable to me. > > 2. Land Pin-yen's patch as a downstream-only patch in ChromeOS. This > would solve the problem, but it would make me sad. If anyone ever > wants to take these old laptops and run some other Linux distribution > on them (and there are several that target old Chromebooks) then > they'd be again stuck with old timings. > > 3. Land a patch like this one that at least gets us into not such a bad shape. > > While I don't love this patch (and that's why I made it clear that it > needs to spend time on the list), it seems better than the > alternatives. Do you have a proposal for something else? If not, can > you confirm you're OK with #3 given this explanation? ...and perhaps > more details in the commit message? I don't have a specific comment, it was more of a comment about the process itself, if you write down what's above in the commit message ... > I would also note that, hopefully, patches like this shouldn't be a > recurring pattern. Any new Chromebooks using panel-edp will get > flagged much earlier and we should be able to get real/proper timings > added. I believe that we've also added a factory test so that > (assuming it doesn't get ignored by someone) devices that aren't > supported don't even make it out of the factory. ... and if we can expect it to be a one-off, then it's fine for me. Thanks! Maxime
Hi, On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 7:34 AM Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > Repeating my comments from v1 here too, since I expect this patch to > > > > sit on the lists for a little while: > > > > > > > > > > > > This is OK w/ me, but it will need time on the mailing lists before > > > > landing in case anyone else has opinions. > > > > > > Generally speaking, I'm not really a fan of big patches that dump > > > whatever ChromeOS is doing ... > > > > > > > Specifical thoughts: > > > > > > > > * I at least feel fairly confident that this is OK since these panels > > > > essentially booted without _any_ delays back on the old downstream > > > > v4.19 kernel. Presumably the panels just had fairly robust timing > > > > controllers and so worked OK, but it's better to get the timing more > > > > correct. > > > > > > ... especially since you have to rely on the recollection of engineers > > > involved at the time and you have no real way to test and make things > > > clearer anymore, and we have to take patches in that are handwavy "trust > > > us, it's doing the right thing". > > > > > > I'd really prefer to have these patches sent as they are found out. > > > > It's probably not clear enough from the commit message, but this isn't > > just a dump from downstream 4.19. What happened was: > > > > 1. Downstream chromeos-4.19 used the "little white lie" approach. They > > all claimed a specific panel's compatible string even though there > > were a whole pile of panels out there actually being used. Personally, > > this was not something I was ever a fan of (and I wasn't personally > > involved in this project), but it was the "state of the art" before > > the generic panel-edp. Getting out of the "little white lie" situation > > was why I spent so much time on the generic edp-panel solution > > upstream. > > > > 2. These devices have now been uprevved to a newer kernel and I > > believe that there were issues seen that necessitated a move to the > > proper generic panel-edp code. > > > > 3. We are now getting field reports from our warning collector about a > > whole pile of panels that are falling back to the "conservative" > > timings, which means that they turn on/off much more slowly than they > > should. > > > > Pin-yen made an attempt to search for panels data sheets that matched > > up with the IDs that came in from the field reports but there were > > some panels that he just couldn't find. > > > > So basically we're stuck. Options: > > > > 1. Leave customers who have these panels stuck with the hardware > > behaving worse than it used to. This is not acceptable to me. > > > > 2. Land Pin-yen's patch as a downstream-only patch in ChromeOS. This > > would solve the problem, but it would make me sad. If anyone ever > > wants to take these old laptops and run some other Linux distribution > > on them (and there are several that target old Chromebooks) then > > they'd be again stuck with old timings. > > > > 3. Land a patch like this one that at least gets us into not such a bad shape. > > > > While I don't love this patch (and that's why I made it clear that it > > needs to spend time on the list), it seems better than the > > alternatives. Do you have a proposal for something else? If not, can > > you confirm you're OK with #3 given this explanation? ...and perhaps > > more details in the commit message? > > I don't have a specific comment, it was more of a comment about the > process itself, if you write down what's above in the commit message ... Pin-yen: can you take a whack at summarizing some of the above in the commit message and sending out a v3?
On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 12:23 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 7:34 AM Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > Repeating my comments from v1 here too, since I expect this patch to > > > > > sit on the lists for a little while: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is OK w/ me, but it will need time on the mailing lists before > > > > > landing in case anyone else has opinions. > > > > > > > > Generally speaking, I'm not really a fan of big patches that dump > > > > whatever ChromeOS is doing ... > > > > > > > > > Specifical thoughts: > > > > > > > > > > * I at least feel fairly confident that this is OK since these panels > > > > > essentially booted without _any_ delays back on the old downstream > > > > > v4.19 kernel. Presumably the panels just had fairly robust timing > > > > > controllers and so worked OK, but it's better to get the timing more > > > > > correct. > > > > > > > > ... especially since you have to rely on the recollection of engineers > > > > involved at the time and you have no real way to test and make things > > > > clearer anymore, and we have to take patches in that are handwavy "trust > > > > us, it's doing the right thing". > > > > > > > > I'd really prefer to have these patches sent as they are found out. > > > > > > It's probably not clear enough from the commit message, but this isn't > > > just a dump from downstream 4.19. What happened was: > > > > > > 1. Downstream chromeos-4.19 used the "little white lie" approach. They > > > all claimed a specific panel's compatible string even though there > > > were a whole pile of panels out there actually being used. Personally, > > > this was not something I was ever a fan of (and I wasn't personally > > > involved in this project), but it was the "state of the art" before > > > the generic panel-edp. Getting out of the "little white lie" situation > > > was why I spent so much time on the generic edp-panel solution > > > upstream. > > > > > > 2. These devices have now been uprevved to a newer kernel and I > > > believe that there were issues seen that necessitated a move to the > > > proper generic panel-edp code. > > > > > > 3. We are now getting field reports from our warning collector about a > > > whole pile of panels that are falling back to the "conservative" > > > timings, which means that they turn on/off much more slowly than they > > > should. > > > > > > Pin-yen made an attempt to search for panels data sheets that matched > > > up with the IDs that came in from the field reports but there were > > > some panels that he just couldn't find. > > > > > > So basically we're stuck. Options: > > > > > > 1. Leave customers who have these panels stuck with the hardware > > > behaving worse than it used to. This is not acceptable to me. > > > > > > 2. Land Pin-yen's patch as a downstream-only patch in ChromeOS. This > > > would solve the problem, but it would make me sad. If anyone ever > > > wants to take these old laptops and run some other Linux distribution > > > on them (and there are several that target old Chromebooks) then > > > they'd be again stuck with old timings. > > > > > > 3. Land a patch like this one that at least gets us into not such a bad shape. > > > > > > While I don't love this patch (and that's why I made it clear that it > > > needs to spend time on the list), it seems better than the > > > alternatives. Do you have a proposal for something else? If not, can > > > you confirm you're OK with #3 given this explanation? ...and perhaps > > > more details in the commit message? > > > > I don't have a specific comment, it was more of a comment about the > > process itself, if you write down what's above in the commit message ... > > Pin-yen: can you take a whack at summarizing some of the above in the > commit message and sending out a v3? Sure I'll do that in v3. Sorry for not including enough details in the original commit message. Pin-yen
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-edp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-edp.c index b059f5895d3a..e23737284f31 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-edp.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-edp.c @@ -1955,6 +1955,7 @@ static const struct panel_delay delay_200_500_e50_po2e200 = { static const struct edp_panel_entry edp_panels[] = { EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('A', 'U', 'O', 0x105c, &delay_200_500_e50, "B116XTN01.0"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('A', 'U', 'O', 0x1062, &delay_200_500_e50, "B120XAN01.0"), + EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('A', 'U', 'O', 0x125c, &delay_200_500_e50, "Unknown"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('A', 'U', 'O', 0x145c, &delay_200_500_e50, "B116XAB01.4"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('A', 'U', 'O', 0x1e9b, &delay_200_500_e50, "B133UAN02.1"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('A', 'U', 'O', 0x1ea5, &delay_200_500_e50, "B116XAK01.6"), @@ -1965,6 +1966,7 @@ static const struct edp_panel_entry edp_panels[] = { EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('A', 'U', 'O', 0x403d, &delay_200_500_e50, "B140HAN04.0"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY2('A', 'U', 'O', 0x405c, &auo_b116xak01.delay, "B116XAK01.0", &auo_b116xa3_mode), + EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('A', 'U', 'O', 0x435c, &delay_200_500_e50, "Unknown"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('A', 'U', 'O', 0x582d, &delay_200_500_e50, "B133UAN01.0"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY2('A', 'U', 'O', 0x615c, &delay_200_500_e50, "B116XAN06.1", &auo_b116xa3_mode), @@ -1974,18 +1976,34 @@ static const struct edp_panel_entry edp_panels[] = { EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('A', 'U', 'O', 0x8594, &delay_200_500_e50, "B133UAN01.0"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('A', 'U', 'O', 0xf390, &delay_200_500_e50, "B140XTN07.7"), + EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('B', 'O', 'E', 0x0607, &delay_200_500_e200, "Unknown"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('B', 'O', 'E', 0x0608, &delay_200_500_e50, "NT116WHM-N11"), + EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('B', 'O', 'E', 0x0668, &delay_200_500_e200, "Unknown"), + EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('B', 'O', 'E', 0x068f, &delay_200_500_e200, "Unknown"), + EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('B', 'O', 'E', 0x06e5, &delay_200_500_e200, "Unknown"), + EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('B', 'O', 'E', 0x0705, &delay_200_500_e200, "Unknown"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('B', 'O', 'E', 0x0715, &delay_200_150_e200, "NT116WHM-N21"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('B', 'O', 'E', 0x0717, &delay_200_500_e50_po2e200, "NV133FHM-N42"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('B', 'O', 'E', 0x0731, &delay_200_500_e80, "NT116WHM-N42"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('B', 'O', 'E', 0x0741, &delay_200_500_e200, "NT116WHM-N44"), + EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('B', 'O', 'E', 0x0744, &delay_200_500_e200, "Unknown"), + EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('B', 'O', 'E', 0x074c, &delay_200_500_e200, "Unknown"), + EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('B', 'O', 'E', 0x0751, &delay_200_500_e200, "Unknown"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('B', 'O', 'E', 0x0754, &delay_200_500_e50_po2e200, "NV116WHM-N45"), + EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('B', 'O', 'E', 0x0771, &delay_200_500_e200, "Unknown"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('B', 'O', 'E', 0x0786, &delay_200_500_p2e80, "NV116WHM-T01"), + EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('B', 'O', 'E', 0x0797, &delay_200_500_e200, "Unknown"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('B', 'O', 'E', 0x07d1, &boe_nv133fhm_n61.delay, "NV133FHM-N61"), + EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('B', 'O', 'E', 0x07d3, &delay_200_500_e200, "Unknown"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('B', 'O', 'E', 0x07f6, &delay_200_500_e200, "NT140FHM-N44"), + EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('B', 'O', 'E', 0x07f8, &delay_200_500_e200, "Unknown"), + EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('B', 'O', 'E', 0x0813, &delay_200_500_e200, "Unknown"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('B', 'O', 'E', 0x0827, &delay_200_500_e50_p2e80, "NT140WHM-N44 V8.0"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('B', 'O', 'E', 0x082d, &boe_nv133fhm_n61.delay, "NV133FHM-N62"), + EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('B', 'O', 'E', 0x0843, &delay_200_500_e200, "Unknown"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('B', 'O', 'E', 0x08b2, &delay_200_500_e200, "NT140WHM-N49"), + EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('B', 'O', 'E', 0x0848, &delay_200_500_e200, "Unknown"), + EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('B', 'O', 'E', 0x0849, &delay_200_500_e200, "Unknown"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('B', 'O', 'E', 0x09c3, &delay_200_500_e50, "NT116WHM-N21,836X2"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('B', 'O', 'E', 0x094b, &delay_200_500_e50, "NT116WHM-N21"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('B', 'O', 'E', 0x0951, &delay_200_500_e80, "NV116WHM-N47"), @@ -1997,6 +2015,7 @@ static const struct edp_panel_entry edp_panels[] = { EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('B', 'O', 'E', 0x09ad, &delay_200_500_e80, "NV116WHM-N47"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('B', 'O', 'E', 0x09ae, &delay_200_500_e200, "NT140FHM-N45"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('B', 'O', 'E', 0x09dd, &delay_200_500_e50, "NT116WHM-N21"), + EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('B', 'O', 'E', 0x0a36, &delay_200_500_e200, "Unknown"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('B', 'O', 'E', 0x0a5d, &delay_200_500_e50, "NV116WHM-N45"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('B', 'O', 'E', 0x0ac5, &delay_200_500_e50, "NV116WHM-N4C"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('B', 'O', 'E', 0x0b43, &delay_200_500_e200, "NV140FHM-T09"), @@ -2007,11 +2026,14 @@ static const struct edp_panel_entry edp_panels[] = { EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('C', 'M', 'N', 0x1132, &delay_200_500_e80_d50, "N116BGE-EA2"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('C', 'M', 'N', 0x1138, &innolux_n116bca_ea1.delay, "N116BCA-EA1-RC4"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('C', 'M', 'N', 0x1139, &delay_200_500_e80_d50, "N116BGE-EA2"), + EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('C', 'M', 'N', 0x1141, &delay_200_500_e80_d50, "Unknown"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('C', 'M', 'N', 0x1145, &delay_200_500_e80_d50, "N116BCN-EB1"), + EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('C', 'M', 'N', 0x114a, &delay_200_500_e80_d50, "Unknown"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('C', 'M', 'N', 0x114c, &innolux_n116bca_ea1.delay, "N116BCA-EA1"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('C', 'M', 'N', 0x1152, &delay_200_500_e80_d50, "N116BCN-EA1"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('C', 'M', 'N', 0x1153, &delay_200_500_e80_d50, "N116BGE-EA2"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('C', 'M', 'N', 0x1154, &delay_200_500_e80_d50, "N116BCA-EA2"), + EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('C', 'M', 'N', 0x1156, &delay_200_500_e80_d50, "Unknown"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('C', 'M', 'N', 0x1157, &delay_200_500_e80_d50, "N116BGE-EA2"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('C', 'M', 'N', 0x115b, &delay_200_500_e80_d50, "N116BCN-EB1"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('C', 'M', 'N', 0x1247, &delay_200_500_e80_d50, "N120ACA-EA1"), @@ -2023,6 +2045,8 @@ static const struct edp_panel_entry edp_panels[] = { EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('C', 'M', 'N', 0x14d6, &delay_200_500_e80_d50, "N140BGA-EA4"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('C', 'M', 'N', 0x14e5, &delay_200_500_e80_d50, "N140HGA-EA1"), + EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('H', 'K', 'C', 0x2d51, &delay_200_500_e200, "Unknown"), + EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('H', 'K', 'C', 0x2d5b, &delay_200_500_e200, "Unknown"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('H', 'K', 'C', 0x2d5c, &delay_200_500_e200, "MB116AN01-2"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('I', 'V', 'O', 0x048e, &delay_200_500_e200_d10, "M116NWR6 R5"), @@ -2031,6 +2055,7 @@ static const struct edp_panel_entry edp_panels[] = { EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('I', 'V', 'O', 0x854b, &delay_200_500_p2e100, "R133NW4K-R0"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('I', 'V', 'O', 0x8c4d, &delay_200_150_e200, "R140NWFM R1"), + EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('K', 'D', 'B', 0x044f, &delay_200_500_e80_d50, "Unknown"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('K', 'D', 'B', 0x0624, &kingdisplay_kd116n21_30nv_a010.delay, "116N21-30NV-A010"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('K', 'D', 'B', 0x1118, &delay_200_500_e50, "KD116N29-30NK-A005"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('K', 'D', 'B', 0x1120, &delay_200_500_e80_d50, "116N29-30NK-C007"), @@ -2039,9 +2064,15 @@ static const struct edp_panel_entry edp_panels[] = { EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('K', 'D', 'C', 0x05f1, &delay_200_500_e80_d50, "KD116N5-30NV-G7"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('K', 'D', 'C', 0x0809, &delay_200_500_e50, "KD116N2930A15"), + EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('L', 'G', 'D', 0x0000, &delay_200_500_e200_d200, "Unknown"), + EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('L', 'G', 'D', 0x048d, &delay_200_500_e200_d200, "Unknown"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('L', 'G', 'D', 0x0497, &delay_200_500_e200_d200, "LP116WH7-SPB1"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('L', 'G', 'D', 0x052c, &delay_200_500_e200_d200, "LP133WF2-SPL7"), + EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('L', 'G', 'D', 0x0537, &delay_200_500_e200_d200, "Unknown"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('L', 'G', 'D', 0x054a, &delay_200_500_e200_d200, "LP116WH8-SPC1"), + EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('L', 'G', 'D', 0x0567, &delay_200_500_e200_d200, "Unknown"), + EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('L', 'G', 'D', 0x05af, &delay_200_500_e200_d200, "Unknown"), + EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('L', 'G', 'D', 0x05f1, &delay_200_500_e200_d200, "Unknown"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('S', 'D', 'C', 0x416d, &delay_100_500_e200, "ATNA45AF01"),
These panels are used by Mediatek MT8173 Chromebooks but we can't find the corresponding data sheets, and these panels used to work on v4.19 kernel without any specified delays. Therefore, instead of having them use the default conservative timings, update them with less-conservative timings from other panels of the same vendor. The panels should still work under those timings, and we can save some delays and suppress the warnings. Signed-off-by: Pin-yen Lin <treapking@chromium.org> --- (no changes since v1) drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-edp.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+)