On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 12:38 PM Rob Herring <robh...@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 2:04 PM Vasily Khoruzhick <anars...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 2:24 AM Thierry Reding <thierry.red...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 09:57:37AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 05:22:58PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 04:59:09PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 12:22:18PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 10:40:12AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 09:23:59AM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 12:13:55AM -0800, Vasily Khoruzhick > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 11:43 PM Thierry Reding > > > > > > > > > > <thierry.red...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 03, 2019 at 10:54:57AM -0800, Vasily > > > > > > > > > > > Khoruzhick wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > eDP panels usually have EDID EEPROM, so there's no need > > > > > > > > > > > > to define panel > > > > > > > > > > > > width/height or any modes/timings in dts. But this > > > > > > > > > > > > panel still may have > > > > > > > > > > > > regulator and/or backlight. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Vasily Khoruzhick <anars...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > .../devicetree/bindings/display/panel/panel-edp.txt > > > > > > > > > > > > | 7 +++++++ > > > > > > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > > > create mode 100644 > > > > > > > > > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/panel-edp.txt > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please don't try to make panels look more generic than > > > > > > > > > > > they really are. > > > > > > > > > > > You're going to have to provide a compatible string for > > > > > > > > > > > your device that > > > > > > > > > > > is more specific than "panel-edp". You claim that you > > > > > > > > > > > don't need any > > > > > > > > > > > extra information that is panel specific, but you don't > > > > > > > > > > > know that now. > > > > > > > > > > > We have in the past thought that we didn't need things > > > > > > > > > > > like prepare > > > > > > > > > > > delay, but then we ran into situations where we did need > > > > > > > > > > > them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just do what everybody else does. Provide a specific > > > > > > > > > > > compatible string > > > > > > > > > > > and match on that in the panel-simple driver. Even if you > > > > > > > > > > > can read all > > > > > > > > > > > the video timings from an EDID EEPROM, you can still > > > > > > > > > > > provide a mode in > > > > > > > > > > > the panel descriptor to serve as a fallback if for > > > > > > > > > > > example the EEPROM > > > > > > > > > > > is faulty on some device. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pinebook used several 768p panels that have slightly > > > > > > > > > > different timings > > > > > > > > > > and recent batch uses 1080p panel. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What panel descriptor should I use as fallback? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You don't use panel descriptors as fallback. The simple-panel > > > > > > > > > driver > > > > > > > > > will bind to a panel device and use the corresponding > > > > > > > > > descriptor. If > > > > > > > > > your device tree contains the correct information, the > > > > > > > > > descriptor is > > > > > > > > > correct for the panel you have. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words you need to ensure that you have the correct > > > > > > > > > panel in > > > > > > > > > device tree for the board that you're using. This is exactly > > > > > > > > > the same > > > > > > > > > thing as for other devices. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One way to to this is to have separate device trees for each > > > > > > > > > variant > > > > > > > > > of the board that you want to support. Another variant may be > > > > > > > > > to have > > > > > > > > > a common device tree and then have some early firmware update > > > > > > > > > the DTB > > > > > > > > > with the correct panel information. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This would defeat the point of edp, which is to standardize the > > > > > > > > mess of > > > > > > > > panels (at least somewhat) and avoid having to change the > > > > > > > > DT/ACPI > > > > > > > > tables/firmware for every board you ship. Also, we do have DP > > > > > > > > quirking > > > > > > > > infrastructure already (using the OUI), I think if there's > > > > > > > > something that > > > > > > > > doesn't work then we should quirk it there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem is that while the attempt may have been to > > > > > > > standardize, it > > > > > > > failed. It doesn't take into account any of the details such as > > > > > > > timing > > > > > > > between things like powering up the display and enabling the > > > > > > > backlight > > > > > > > or similar. I don't know how you'd want to "quirk" those kinds of > > > > > > > requirements because they are highly panel specific. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hm right, we get these from some firmware tables (and mix them with > > > > > > the > > > > > > spec one, since some of the firmware values are nonsense). I don't > > > > > > even > > > > > > know whether we can read the timings over dp aux somehow (you can > > > > > > power up > > > > > > the panel with some pessimistic values to figure those out, and you > > > > > > only > > > > > > need dp aux to work, which is much simpler than the entire panel). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What does make sense though imo is if we try not to stuff the > > > > > > > > edp panel > > > > > > > > into panel-simple, because it's anything like a simple dumb > > > > > > > > panel. There's > > > > > > > > also some integration awkwardness since with this panel you > > > > > > > > need to do dp > > > > > > > > aux/i2c transactions to get at the information (edid alone > > > > > > > > isn't good > > > > > > > > enough for edp), and I'm not sure how exactly that's supposed > > > > > > > > to be > > > > > > > > instantiated. Maybe a special function to instantiate an edp > > > > > > > > panel, which > > > > > > > > takes both a DT node and the dp_aux controller would be much > > > > > > > > better, > > > > > > > > instead of trying to auto-match against a DT compatible string > > > > > > > > and load a > > > > > > > > panel driver which is almost all fake. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or we teach dp_aux to register itself and somehow teach > > > > > > > > panel-edp how it > > > > > > > > can get hold of the dp_aux channel it needs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We already do that. drm_dp_aux registers as an I2C adapter that > > > > > > > can be > > > > > > > used to read EDID EEPROMs using I2C-over-AUX transactions. We > > > > > > > already > > > > > > > use that on some platforms. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also note that simple-panel already supports getting video > > > > > > > timings from > > > > > > > EDID. If a DDC link is present in DT, the driver will load the > > > > > > > modes > > > > > > > from EDID and use them. > > > > > > > > > > > > Could we extend this to dp aux somehow? For edp you need the dp aux > > > > > > (which > > > > > > then gives you the ddc link automatically). > > > > > > > > > > I suppose we could do that. We could introduce a new property that > > > > > would > > > > > allow the panel driver to get at the struct drm_dp_aux that can access > > > > > the panel. I'm not sure how much that would buy us. I suppose the > > > > > driver > > > > > could go and use that drm_dp_aux to do I2C-over-AUX and ignore any > > > > > ddc-bus property in device tree. A drm_dp_aux object could also be > > > > > used > > > > > to access DPCD if that's helpful. > > > > > > > > > > The driver proposed here doesn't need access to DPCD, so I'm not sure > > > > > that would immediately help. > > > > > > > > You definitely need dp aux to drive edp. That's where a lot of the > > > > really > > > > important stuff is stored, and it sounds like on non-broken panels even > > > > the timings (we've never implemented that on i915 somehow). > > > > > > I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. I haven't worked with > > > eDP panels in a while, but my recollection is that you can use DP AUX to > > > read video timings over EDID. We provide support for that by exporting a > > > DP AUX controller as I2C adapter (i.e. register with the I2C subsystem) > > > and then that I2C adapter can be used to read the EDID. I wasn't aware > > > that eDP panels additionally stored the video timings somewhere else. > > > > > > What I meant above was that aside from the I2C-over-AUX for reading the > > > EDID, this driver doesn't do anything else with DP AUX in order to turn > > > the panel on. Looking at the eDP support we have on Tegra, there's a > > > DPCD register (DP_SET_POWER) that needs to be written in order to take > > > the sink device (i.e. panel) out of the power saving state. We do that > > > as part of the connector implementation rather than within the panel > > > driver. There are also additional registers such as DP_LINK_BW_SET that > > > need to be programmed. I think this is also relevant to regular DP and > > > detailed in the specification. > > > > > > Given all the above, I'm beginning to think that Rob's right in that > > > perhaps we shouldn't be treating eDP panels as panels, but rather to > > > make them look more like DP monitors and make all this code part of the > > > connector implementation. I think pretty much the only differences to > > > regular DP are that we might require some lower-level resources that a > > > DP monitor would usually have built-in (reset or power GPIOs, power > > > supplies, backlight, ...). > > > > I spent some time poking drm_connector code and I came to conclusion > > that it's not a good idea. > > Basically edp-connector driver will duplicate simple-panel code and > > will bring extra complexity > > into bridge driver for no benefit at all. > > I said this on irc, but for everyone's benefit, what's used in the > kernel and the binding don't have to be aligned. I still think > following a connector binding in DT makes sense even if the kernel > implementation is actually a panel driver. Really, there's no > difference in bindings between a connector node and panel node. > > > Also currently there are no stand-alone connector drivers, they all > > are part of display controller > > driver. > > Probably that is something to be refactored. I think we have lots of cases of: > > if (is_connector) > // call connector func > else > // call panel func > > Or maybe that was panel vs. bridge (then a connector)? It's been a > while since I looked at this. In any case, each device in the chain > shouldn't really have much knowledge as to what it is attached to. > > > One more thing to add is that I'm not sure that drm_connector is > > suitable for managing power > > and backlight - I can't find appropriate callback in > > drm_connector_funcs to enable power and/or > > backlight. Basically there's nothing similar to enable() or disable() > > from drm_bridge_funcs. > > Nobody has put the 5V supply on HDMI on a switchable regulator? It may > need to be always on for HPD to work, but I wouldn't expect all board > designers to get that right. > > > > I'm not sure if that's enough for eDP panels, though. For example the > > > AUO B133HTN01 panel, used by the exynos5800-peach-pi, seems to be an eDP > > > panel. But the driver also specifies a couple of additional delays which > > > suggests that either it violates the eDP specification or that the eDP > > > specification doesn't define any power sequencing delays that would've > > > been needed. Or perhaps these delays are specified somewhere and the > > > driver just doesn't use them? > > > > Sigh. We can't foresee any bizarre behavior some hardware may or may > > not have. > > Bingo! You just summed up why we have specific compatibles. > > > Anyway, > > can you propose something that can handle same hardware with different > > edp panels via > > single software image (u-boot aka firmware is part of software image) > > and is acceptable > > upstream? > > compatible = "vendor,some-panel", "edp-connector"; > > Either you have to fixup the first string for the actual panel or have > some testing up front that you don't need to.
Where do I take actual panel compatible from? > The kernel can start > with only using the fallback string and if panel constraints turn out > to be specified sufficiently, we'll never need to use the panel > compatible. So what panel compatible you want me to use if vendor used at least 3 different panels? Introduce 2 more dts files (3 in total) even if they all work just fine with a single dts now? Add one more dts once laptop vendor decides to change panel vendor? > > Rob -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "linux-sunxi" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to linux-sunxi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
