Hi Tomi,
Thank you for the patch.
On Thursday 10 Aug 2017 09:45:20 Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> We are missing OMAP5 DSIPHY lane-enable support, which has prevented
> OMAP5 DSI working in mainline. This patch adds the lane-enable similarly
> to the recently added OMAP4 version.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkei...@ti.com>
> ---
>
> Based on Laurent's recent omapdrm series.
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/dss/dsi.c | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/dss/dsi.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/dss/dsi.c index a66d2b1a6c74..1f0b29af9b86 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/dss/dsi.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/dss/dsi.c
> @@ -2139,14 +2139,51 @@ static int dsi_omap4_mux_pads(struct dsi_data *dsi,
> unsigned int lanes) return 0;
> }
>
> +#define OMAP5_DSIPHY_SYSCON_OFFSET 0x74
> +
> +#define OMAP5_DSI1_LANEENABLE_SHIFT 24
> +#define OMAP5_DSI2_LANEENABLE_SHIFT 19
> +#define OMAP5_DSI_LANEENABLE_MASK 0x1f
> +
> +static int dsi_omap5_mux_pads(struct dsi_data *dsi, unsigned int lanes)
> +{
> + u32 enable_mask, enable_shift, reg;
> +
> + if (!dsi->syscon)
> + return 0;
The purpose of this check in dsi_omap4_mux_pads() was to handle the SoCs that
don't require any driver action to mux the DSI pins. Now that
dsi_enable_pads() and dsi_disable_pads() have new SoC checks, this isn't
needed anymore, dsi->syscon can't be NULL on OMAP4 or OMAP5.
> + if (dsi->module_id == 0)
> + enable_shift = OMAP5_DSI1_LANEENABLE_SHIFT;
> + else if (dsi->module_id == 1)
> + enable_shift = OMAP5_DSI2_LANEENABLE_SHIFT;
> + else
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> + enable_mask = OMAP5_DSI_LANEENABLE_MASK << enable_shift;
> +
> + regmap_read(dsi->syscon, OMAP5_DSIPHY_SYSCON_OFFSET, ®);
> + reg &= ~enable_mask;
> + reg |= (lanes << enable_shift) & enable_mask;
> + regmap_write(dsi->syscon, OMAP5_DSIPHY_SYSCON_OFFSET, reg);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> static int dsi_enable_pads(struct dsi_data *dsi, unsigned int lane_mask)
> {
> - return dsi_omap4_mux_pads(dsi, lane_mask);
> + if (dsi->data->model == DSI_MODEL_OMAP4)
> + return dsi_omap4_mux_pads(dsi, lane_mask);
> + if (dsi->data->model == DSI_MODEL_OMAP5)
> + return dsi_omap5_mux_pads(dsi, lane_mask);
> + return 0;
> }
>
> static void dsi_disable_pads(struct dsi_data *dsi)
> {
> - dsi_omap4_mux_pads(dsi, 0);
> + if (dsi->data->model == DSI_MODEL_OMAP4)
> + dsi_omap4_mux_pads(dsi, 0);
> + if (dsi->data->model == DSI_MODEL_OMAP4)
Did you mean DSI_MODEL_OMAP5 ? As the two are mutually exclusive, I would use
an "else if".
> + dsi_omap5_mux_pads(dsi, 0);
> }
>
> static int dsi_cio_init(struct platform_device *dsidev)
> @@ -5480,14 +5517,17 @@ static int dsi_bind(struct device *dev, struct
> device *master, void *data)
>
> dsi->module_id = d->id;
>
> - if (dsi->data->model == DSI_MODEL_OMAP4) {
> + if (dsi->data->model == DSI_MODEL_OMAP4 ||
> + dsi->data->model == DSI_MODEL_OMAP5) {
> struct device_node *np;
>
> /*
> - * The OMAP4 display DT bindings don't reference the padconf
> + * The OMAP4/5 display DT bindings don't reference the padconf
> * syscon. Our only option to retrieve it is to find it by
name.
> */
> - np = of_find_node_by_name(NULL, "omap4_padconf_global");
> + np = of_find_node_by_name(NULL,
> + dsi->data->model == DSI_MODEL_OMAP4 ?
> + "omap4_padconf_global" : "omap5_padconf_global");
> if (!np)
> return -ENODEV;
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
