Hi,
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 4:42 AM Jayesh Choudhary <j-choudh...@ti.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Doug,
>
> Thanks for the review.
>
> On 08/04/24 14:33, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 12:36 AM Jayesh Choudhary <j-choudh...@ti.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Due to integer calculations, the rounding off can cause errors in the final
> >> value propagated in the registers.
> >> Considering the example of 1080p (very common resolution), the mode->clock
> >> is 148500, dsi->lanes = 4, and bpp = 24, with the previous logic, the DSI
> >> clock frequency would come as 444 when we are expecting the value 445.5
> >> which would reflect in SN_DSIA_CLK_FREQ_REG.
> >> So move the division to be the last operation where rounding off will not
> >> impact the register value.
> >
> > Given that this driver is used on a whole pile of shipping Chromebooks
> > and those devices have been working just fine (with 1080p resolution)
> > for years, I'm curious how you noticed this. Was it actually causing
> > real problems for you, or did you notice it just from code inspection?
> > You should include this information in the commit message.
>
> I am trying to add display support for TI SoC which uses this particular
> bridge. While debugging, I was trying to get all the register value in
> sync with the datasheet and it was then that I observed this issue while
> inspecting the code.
> Maybe Chromebooks are using different set of parameters which does not
> expose this issue. Since parameters for my display (mentioned in commit
> message) yields the frequency at the border, I saw this issue. My debug
> is still ongoing but since the value is not in sync with the
> documentation, I sent out this patch.
OK, sounds good. It would be good to include some of this type of into
in the patch description for the next version.
> > I'm travelling for the next two weeks so I can't actually check on a
> > device to see if your patch makes any difference on hardware I have,
> > but I'd presume that things were working "well enough" with the old
> > value and they'll still work with the new value?
> >
> >
>
> Yes, ideally they should still work well with this change.
OK, I can validate it in a few weeks.
> >> Also according to the SN65DSI86 datasheet[0], the minimum value for that
> >> reg is 0x08 (inclusive) and the maximum value is 0x97 (exclusive). So add
> >> check for that.
> >
> > Maybe the range checking should be a separate patch?
>
> Check should be done before propagating the register value so I added it
> in the same function and hence in the same patch.
I was thinking you could have patch #1 add the checks. ...then patch
#2 could fix the math.
> >> -#define MIN_DSI_CLK_FREQ_MHZ 40
> >> +/*
> >> + * NOTE: DSI clock frequency range: [40MHz,755MHz)
> >> + * DSI clock frequency range is in 5-MHz increments
> >> + * So minimum frequency 40MHz translates to 0x08
> >> + * And maximum frequency 755MHz translates to 0x97
> >> + */
> >> +#define MIN_DSI_CLK_RANGE 0x8
> >> +#define MAX_DSI_CLK_RANGE 0x97
> >
> > It's a little weird to call this min/max and have one be inclusive and
> > one be exclusive. Be consistent and say that this is the minimum legal
> > value and the maximum legal value. I think that means the MAX should
> > be 0x96.
>
> The comment above does specify the inclusive/exclusive behavior.
> Since a value corresponds to 5MHz range, associating the value with
> the range makes more sense if I keep it 0x97 (0x97 * 5 -> 755MHz)
> 0x96 corresponds to the range of [750Mz,755MHz).
>
> If this argument does not make sense, I can change it to 0x96 and handle
> it with the inequalities in the function call.
Right that the comment is correct so that's good, but I'd still like
to see the constants changing. For instance, if I had code like this:
/*
* I know 2 * 2 is not really 5, but it makes my math work out
* so we'll just define it that way.
*/
#define TWO_TIMES_TWO 5
...and then later you had code:
if (x * y >= TWO_TIMES_TWO)
When you read the code you probably wouldn't go back and read the
comment so you'd be confused. AKA the above would be better as:
#define TWO_TIMES_TWO 4
if (x * y > TWO_TIMES_TWO)
Better to make the name of the #define make sense on its own. In this
case "min" and "max" should be the minimum legal value and the maximum
legal value, not "one past".
> >> + */
> >> + bit_rate_khz = mode->clock *
> >> + mipi_dsi_pixel_format_to_bpp(pdata->dsi->format);
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> + * For each increment in val, frequency increases by 5MHz
> >> + * and the factor of 1000 comes from kHz to MHz conversion
> >> + */
> >> + val = (bit_rate_khz / (pdata->dsi->lanes * 2 * 1000 * 5)) & 0xFF;
> >> +
> >> + if (val >= MAX_DSI_CLK_RANGE || val < MIN_DSI_CLK_RANGE) {
> >> + drm_err(pdata->bridge.dev,
> >> + "DSI clock frequency not in the supported
> >> range\n");
> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >> + }
> >
> > Shouldn't the above be in atomic_check()? There's a reason why
> > atomic_enable() can't return error codes.
>
> Oops.
> I will handle it how we are handling errors in case of link_training:
> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c#L1152
>
> That should be okay I guess?
I'm pretty sure it should be in atomic_check(). The atomic_check() is
supposed to confirm that all parameters are within valid ranges and
the enable function shouldn't fail because the caller passed bad
parameters. Specifically this could allow the caller to try different
parameters and see if those would work instead.
In the case of the link training failure it's not something we could
have detected until we actually tried to enable, so there's no choice.
-Doug
