Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/dsi: Fix swapping of MIPI_SEQ_DEASSERT_RESET / MIPI_SEQ_ASSERT_RESET
Hi, On 29-11-16 14:06, Hans de Goede wrote: p.s. I'm also trying to come up with some patches which properly integrate pwm-lpss with the i915 driver instead of it throwing a "Failed to own the pwm chip" error. But as soon as I hook up things so that pwm_get() returns the pwm-lpss pwm0 I hit: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=97330 I get the same pipe-a stuck (or not seeing vblank irqs?) problems sometimes without the pwm-lpss driver in the loop but then only sometimes and with pwm-lpss I get this problem when loading the i915 driver most of the time (but not all the time). I've been debugging this a couple of evenings in a row now, but no luck sofar. Ok, a couple of more evenings of debugging + working on this today has finally resulted in me finding a fix :) The problem is that on driver load we call chv_pipe_power_well_ops.enable() which calls vlv_init_display_clock_gating() which clears the DPOUNIT_CLOCK_GATE_DISABLE bit in DSPCLK_GATE_D while the DSI panel is being driven by PIPE-A, as already documented in intel_dsi_pre_enable() allowing the DPOUNIT to get gated while DSI active will result in a stuck PIPE-A. I've written a patch for this, I'll send this right after this mail, and attach it to bug: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=97330 Which I believe is the same issue. Regards, Hans ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/dsi: Fix swapping of MIPI_SEQ_DEASSERT_RESET / MIPI_SEQ_ASSERT_RESET
Hi,
On 29-11-16 19:57, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 04:06:31PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 02:06:20PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for the quick reply.
On 29-11-16 13:48, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 01:38:57PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
Looking at the ADF code from the Android kernel sources for a
cherrytrail tablet I noticed that it is calling the
MIPI_SEQ_ASSERT_RESET sequence from the panel prepare hook.
Until commit b1cb1bd29189 ("drm/i915/dsi: update reset and power sequences
in panel prepare/unprepare hooks") the mainline i915 code was doing the
same. That commits effectively swaps the calling of MIPI_SEQ_ASSERT_RESET /
MIPI_SEQ_DEASSERT_RESET.
Looking at the naming of the sequences that is the right thing to do,
but the problem is, that the old mainline code and the ADF code was
actually calling the right sequence (tested on a cube iwork8 air tablet),
and the swapping of the calling breaks things.
This breakage was likely not noticed in testing because on cherrytrail,
currently chv_exec_gpio ends up disabling the gpio pins rather then
setting them (this is fixed in the next patch in this patch-set).
This commit fixes the swapping by fixing MIPI_SEQ_ASSERT/DEASSERT_RESET's
places in the enum defining them, so that their (new) names match their
actual use.
Fixes: b1cb1bd29189 ("drm/i915/dsi: update reset and power sequences...")
Cc: Jani Nikula
Cc: Ville Syrjälä
Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_bios.h | 4 ++--
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dsi_panel_vbt.c | 4 ++--
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_bios.h
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_bios.h
index 8405b5a..642a5eb 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_bios.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_bios.h
@@ -49,11 +49,11 @@ struct edp_power_seq {
/* MIPI Sequence Block definitions */
enum mipi_seq {
MIPI_SEQ_END = 0,
- MIPI_SEQ_ASSERT_RESET,
+ MIPI_SEQ_DEASSERT_RESET,
MIPI_SEQ_INIT_OTP,
MIPI_SEQ_DISPLAY_ON,
MIPI_SEQ_DISPLAY_OFF,
- MIPI_SEQ_DEASSERT_RESET,
+ MIPI_SEQ_ASSERT_RESET,
That naming would be against the spec, so I don't think we want to do it
like this. Unless the spec is totally wrong, that is.
Given that both the ADF code and the i915 driver until now have been using
assert on prepare and deassert on unprepare I'm inclined to believe that
the spec is wrong. Is the spec available somewhere public ?
I don't think so. And sadly even if it would it wouldn't really help
since about the only thing it says is:
00 – Reserved
01 - MIPIAssertResetPin
02 – MIPISendInitialDcsCmds (Use this sequence type for sending initialization
commands in LP mode)
03 - MIPIDisplayOn (Use this sequence type for sending initialization commands
in HS mode)
04 – MIPIDisplayOff (Use this sequence type for sending DisplayOff commands in
LP mode)
05 – MIPIDeassertResetPin
06 – MIPIBacklightOn
07 - MIPIBacklightOff
08 – MIPITearOn
09 - MIPITearOff
10 - MIPIPanelPowerOn
11 - MIPIPanelPowerOff
Others – Reserved
So pretty much useless if you actually want to write a working driver.
Also if you look at the v1 sequences with the new names:
MIPI_SEQ_DEASSERT_RESET,
MIPI_SEQ_INIT_OTP,
MIPI_SEQ_DISPLAY_ON,
MIPI_SEQ_DISPLAY_OFF,
MIPI_SEQ_ASSERT_RESET,
Then they are exactly in the order as one would call them on
enable, followed by disable, which I believe is not a coincidence.
Can you provide the VBT for the affected machine so other people can
have a look at it?
Sure I can do that, what would be the easiest way (both for me to
produce and for you to consume) to do this ?
/sys/kernel/debug/dri/0/i915_opregion
For the best chance of preserving the dump for posterity I would
suggest filing a new bug and attaching it there.
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=DRI&component=DRM/Intel
While developing this set, I've added printk calls to the code executing the
sequences, there are 2 gpios involved nr 60 (backlight enable AFAICT, also used
by the BACKLIGHT sequences) and 72 (reset / panel_enable ?).
When efifb is up both are 1 / high.
With the OLD naming, MIPI_SEQ_ASSERT_RESET does:
gpio 72 high
delay
gpio 72 low
delay
gpio 72 high
Hmm. OK so it just toggles the reset pin it seems.
And DEASSERT does:
gpio 72 low
gpio 60 low
And this leaves the reset pin asserted, assuming it's active low,
which your patch would seem to confirm.
So with the old naming DEASSERT leaves the panel disabled / in reset and
the backlight disabled, which is exactly what we do not want...
Right. Hmm. If we do flip them over like you suggest I think we'll at
least need a big comment to inform people why we seem to go against the
spec.
I just filed a bug against the spec, but given past history I'm not
expecting that to result in much of anything TBH.
Actually I did get a useful response. So ye
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/dsi: Fix swapping of MIPI_SEQ_DEASSERT_RESET / MIPI_SEQ_ASSERT_RESET
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 04:06:31PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 02:06:20PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thanks for the quick reply.
> >
> > On 29-11-16 13:48, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 01:38:57PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > >> Looking at the ADF code from the Android kernel sources for a
> > >> cherrytrail tablet I noticed that it is calling the
> > >> MIPI_SEQ_ASSERT_RESET sequence from the panel prepare hook.
> > >>
> > >> Until commit b1cb1bd29189 ("drm/i915/dsi: update reset and power
> > >> sequences
> > >> in panel prepare/unprepare hooks") the mainline i915 code was doing the
> > >> same. That commits effectively swaps the calling of
> > >> MIPI_SEQ_ASSERT_RESET /
> > >> MIPI_SEQ_DEASSERT_RESET.
> > >>
> > >> Looking at the naming of the sequences that is the right thing to do,
> > >> but the problem is, that the old mainline code and the ADF code was
> > >> actually calling the right sequence (tested on a cube iwork8 air tablet),
> > >> and the swapping of the calling breaks things.
> > >>
> > >> This breakage was likely not noticed in testing because on cherrytrail,
> > >> currently chv_exec_gpio ends up disabling the gpio pins rather then
> > >> setting them (this is fixed in the next patch in this patch-set).
> > >>
> > >> This commit fixes the swapping by fixing MIPI_SEQ_ASSERT/DEASSERT_RESET's
> > >> places in the enum defining them, so that their (new) names match their
> > >> actual use.
> > >>
> > >> Fixes: b1cb1bd29189 ("drm/i915/dsi: update reset and power sequences...")
> > >> Cc: Jani Nikula
> > >> Cc: Ville Syrjälä
> > >> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede
> > >> ---
> > >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_bios.h | 4 ++--
> > >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dsi_panel_vbt.c | 4 ++--
> > >> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_bios.h
> > >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_bios.h
> > >> index 8405b5a..642a5eb 100644
> > >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_bios.h
> > >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_bios.h
> > >> @@ -49,11 +49,11 @@ struct edp_power_seq {
> > >> /* MIPI Sequence Block definitions */
> > >> enum mipi_seq {
> > >> MIPI_SEQ_END = 0,
> > >> -MIPI_SEQ_ASSERT_RESET,
> > >> +MIPI_SEQ_DEASSERT_RESET,
> > >> MIPI_SEQ_INIT_OTP,
> > >> MIPI_SEQ_DISPLAY_ON,
> > >> MIPI_SEQ_DISPLAY_OFF,
> > >> -MIPI_SEQ_DEASSERT_RESET,
> > >> +MIPI_SEQ_ASSERT_RESET,
> > >
> > > That naming would be against the spec, so I don't think we want to do it
> > > like this. Unless the spec is totally wrong, that is.
> >
> > Given that both the ADF code and the i915 driver until now have been using
> > assert on prepare and deassert on unprepare I'm inclined to believe that
> > the spec is wrong. Is the spec available somewhere public ?
>
> I don't think so. And sadly even if it would it wouldn't really help
> since about the only thing it says is:
>
> 00 – Reserved
> 01 - MIPIAssertResetPin
> 02 – MIPISendInitialDcsCmds (Use this sequence type for sending
> initialization commands in LP mode)
> 03 - MIPIDisplayOn (Use this sequence type for sending initialization
> commands in HS mode)
> 04 – MIPIDisplayOff (Use this sequence type for sending DisplayOff commands
> in LP mode)
> 05 – MIPIDeassertResetPin
> 06 – MIPIBacklightOn
> 07 - MIPIBacklightOff
> 08 – MIPITearOn
> 09 - MIPITearOff
> 10 - MIPIPanelPowerOn
> 11 - MIPIPanelPowerOff
> Others – Reserved
>
> So pretty much useless if you actually want to write a working driver.
>
> >
> > Also if you look at the v1 sequences with the new names:
> >
> > MIPI_SEQ_DEASSERT_RESET,
> > MIPI_SEQ_INIT_OTP,
> > MIPI_SEQ_DISPLAY_ON,
> > MIPI_SEQ_DISPLAY_OFF,
> > MIPI_SEQ_ASSERT_RESET,
> >
> > Then they are exactly in the order as one would call them on
> > enable, followed by disable, which I believe is not a coincidence.
> >
> > > Can you provide the VBT for the affected machine so other people can
> > > have a look at it?
> >
> > Sure I can do that, what would be the easiest way (both for me to
> > produce and for you to consume) to do this ?
>
> /sys/kernel/debug/dri/0/i915_opregion
>
> For the best chance of preserving the dump for posterity I would
> suggest filing a new bug and attaching it there.
>
> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=DRI&component=DRM/Intel
>
> >
> > While developing this set, I've added printk calls to the code executing the
> > sequences, there are 2 gpios involved nr 60 (backlight enable AFAICT, also
> > used
> > by the BACKLIGHT sequences) and 72 (reset / panel_enable ?).
> > When efifb is up both are 1 / high.
> >
> > With the OLD naming, MIPI_SEQ_ASSERT_RESET does:
> >
> > gpio 72 high
> > delay
> > gpio 72 low
> > delay
> > gpio 72 high
>
> Hmm. OK so it just toggles the reset pin it seems.
>
> >
> > And DEASSERT does:
> >
> > gpio 72 low
> > gpio 60 low
>
> And this leav
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/dsi: Fix swapping of MIPI_SEQ_DEASSERT_RESET / MIPI_SEQ_ASSERT_RESET
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 02:06:20PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the quick reply.
>
> On 29-11-16 13:48, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 01:38:57PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> >> Looking at the ADF code from the Android kernel sources for a
> >> cherrytrail tablet I noticed that it is calling the
> >> MIPI_SEQ_ASSERT_RESET sequence from the panel prepare hook.
> >>
> >> Until commit b1cb1bd29189 ("drm/i915/dsi: update reset and power sequences
> >> in panel prepare/unprepare hooks") the mainline i915 code was doing the
> >> same. That commits effectively swaps the calling of MIPI_SEQ_ASSERT_RESET /
> >> MIPI_SEQ_DEASSERT_RESET.
> >>
> >> Looking at the naming of the sequences that is the right thing to do,
> >> but the problem is, that the old mainline code and the ADF code was
> >> actually calling the right sequence (tested on a cube iwork8 air tablet),
> >> and the swapping of the calling breaks things.
> >>
> >> This breakage was likely not noticed in testing because on cherrytrail,
> >> currently chv_exec_gpio ends up disabling the gpio pins rather then
> >> setting them (this is fixed in the next patch in this patch-set).
> >>
> >> This commit fixes the swapping by fixing MIPI_SEQ_ASSERT/DEASSERT_RESET's
> >> places in the enum defining them, so that their (new) names match their
> >> actual use.
> >>
> >> Fixes: b1cb1bd29189 ("drm/i915/dsi: update reset and power sequences...")
> >> Cc: Jani Nikula
> >> Cc: Ville Syrjälä
> >> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede
> >> ---
> >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_bios.h | 4 ++--
> >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dsi_panel_vbt.c | 4 ++--
> >> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_bios.h
> >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_bios.h
> >> index 8405b5a..642a5eb 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_bios.h
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_bios.h
> >> @@ -49,11 +49,11 @@ struct edp_power_seq {
> >> /* MIPI Sequence Block definitions */
> >> enum mipi_seq {
> >>MIPI_SEQ_END = 0,
> >> - MIPI_SEQ_ASSERT_RESET,
> >> + MIPI_SEQ_DEASSERT_RESET,
> >>MIPI_SEQ_INIT_OTP,
> >>MIPI_SEQ_DISPLAY_ON,
> >>MIPI_SEQ_DISPLAY_OFF,
> >> - MIPI_SEQ_DEASSERT_RESET,
> >> + MIPI_SEQ_ASSERT_RESET,
> >
> > That naming would be against the spec, so I don't think we want to do it
> > like this. Unless the spec is totally wrong, that is.
>
> Given that both the ADF code and the i915 driver until now have been using
> assert on prepare and deassert on unprepare I'm inclined to believe that
> the spec is wrong. Is the spec available somewhere public ?
I don't think so. And sadly even if it would it wouldn't really help
since about the only thing it says is:
00 – Reserved
01 - MIPIAssertResetPin
02 – MIPISendInitialDcsCmds (Use this sequence type for sending initialization
commands in LP mode)
03 - MIPIDisplayOn (Use this sequence type for sending initialization commands
in HS mode)
04 – MIPIDisplayOff (Use this sequence type for sending DisplayOff commands in
LP mode)
05 – MIPIDeassertResetPin
06 – MIPIBacklightOn
07 - MIPIBacklightOff
08 – MIPITearOn
09 - MIPITearOff
10 - MIPIPanelPowerOn
11 - MIPIPanelPowerOff
Others – Reserved
So pretty much useless if you actually want to write a working driver.
>
> Also if you look at the v1 sequences with the new names:
>
> MIPI_SEQ_DEASSERT_RESET,
> MIPI_SEQ_INIT_OTP,
> MIPI_SEQ_DISPLAY_ON,
> MIPI_SEQ_DISPLAY_OFF,
> MIPI_SEQ_ASSERT_RESET,
>
> Then they are exactly in the order as one would call them on
> enable, followed by disable, which I believe is not a coincidence.
>
> > Can you provide the VBT for the affected machine so other people can
> > have a look at it?
>
> Sure I can do that, what would be the easiest way (both for me to
> produce and for you to consume) to do this ?
/sys/kernel/debug/dri/0/i915_opregion
For the best chance of preserving the dump for posterity I would
suggest filing a new bug and attaching it there.
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=DRI&component=DRM/Intel
>
> While developing this set, I've added printk calls to the code executing the
> sequences, there are 2 gpios involved nr 60 (backlight enable AFAICT, also
> used
> by the BACKLIGHT sequences) and 72 (reset / panel_enable ?).
> When efifb is up both are 1 / high.
>
> With the OLD naming, MIPI_SEQ_ASSERT_RESET does:
>
> gpio 72 high
> delay
> gpio 72 low
> delay
> gpio 72 high
Hmm. OK so it just toggles the reset pin it seems.
>
> And DEASSERT does:
>
> gpio 72 low
> gpio 60 low
And this leaves the reset pin asserted, assuming it's active low,
which your patch would seem to confirm.
>
> So with the old naming DEASSERT leaves the panel disabled / in reset and
> the backlight disabled, which is exactly what we do not want...
Right. Hmm. If we do flip them over like you suggest I think we'll at
least need a big comment to inform people why we seem to go against the
sp
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/dsi: Fix swapping of MIPI_SEQ_DEASSERT_RESET / MIPI_SEQ_ASSERT_RESET
Hi,
Thanks for the quick reply.
On 29-11-16 13:48, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 01:38:57PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
Looking at the ADF code from the Android kernel sources for a
cherrytrail tablet I noticed that it is calling the
MIPI_SEQ_ASSERT_RESET sequence from the panel prepare hook.
Until commit b1cb1bd29189 ("drm/i915/dsi: update reset and power sequences
in panel prepare/unprepare hooks") the mainline i915 code was doing the
same. That commits effectively swaps the calling of MIPI_SEQ_ASSERT_RESET /
MIPI_SEQ_DEASSERT_RESET.
Looking at the naming of the sequences that is the right thing to do,
but the problem is, that the old mainline code and the ADF code was
actually calling the right sequence (tested on a cube iwork8 air tablet),
and the swapping of the calling breaks things.
This breakage was likely not noticed in testing because on cherrytrail,
currently chv_exec_gpio ends up disabling the gpio pins rather then
setting them (this is fixed in the next patch in this patch-set).
This commit fixes the swapping by fixing MIPI_SEQ_ASSERT/DEASSERT_RESET's
places in the enum defining them, so that their (new) names match their
actual use.
Fixes: b1cb1bd29189 ("drm/i915/dsi: update reset and power sequences...")
Cc: Jani Nikula
Cc: Ville Syrjälä
Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_bios.h | 4 ++--
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dsi_panel_vbt.c | 4 ++--
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_bios.h
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_bios.h
index 8405b5a..642a5eb 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_bios.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_bios.h
@@ -49,11 +49,11 @@ struct edp_power_seq {
/* MIPI Sequence Block definitions */
enum mipi_seq {
MIPI_SEQ_END = 0,
- MIPI_SEQ_ASSERT_RESET,
+ MIPI_SEQ_DEASSERT_RESET,
MIPI_SEQ_INIT_OTP,
MIPI_SEQ_DISPLAY_ON,
MIPI_SEQ_DISPLAY_OFF,
- MIPI_SEQ_DEASSERT_RESET,
+ MIPI_SEQ_ASSERT_RESET,
That naming would be against the spec, so I don't think we want to do it
like this. Unless the spec is totally wrong, that is.
Given that both the ADF code and the i915 driver until now have been using
assert on prepare and deassert on unprepare I'm inclined to believe that
the spec is wrong. Is the spec available somewhere public ?
Also if you look at the v1 sequences with the new names:
MIPI_SEQ_DEASSERT_RESET,
MIPI_SEQ_INIT_OTP,
MIPI_SEQ_DISPLAY_ON,
MIPI_SEQ_DISPLAY_OFF,
MIPI_SEQ_ASSERT_RESET,
Then they are exactly in the order as one would call them on
enable, followed by disable, which I believe is not a coincidence.
Can you provide the VBT for the affected machine so other people can
have a look at it?
Sure I can do that, what would be the easiest way (both for me to
produce and for you to consume) to do this ?
While developing this set, I've added printk calls to the code executing the
sequences, there are 2 gpios involved nr 60 (backlight enable AFAICT, also used
by the BACKLIGHT sequences) and 72 (reset / panel_enable ?).
When efifb is up both are 1 / high.
With the OLD naming, MIPI_SEQ_ASSERT_RESET does:
gpio 72 high
delay
gpio 72 low
delay
gpio 72 high
And DEASSERT does:
gpio 72 low
gpio 60 low
So with the old naming DEASSERT leaves the panel disabled / in reset and
the backlight disabled, which is exactly what we do not want...
I guess it would be good if someone could check if my patch helps
or not on other tablets which use these sequences.
Regards,
Hans
p.s.
I'm also trying to come up with some patches which properly
integrate pwm-lpss with the i915 driver instead of it
throwing a "Failed to own the pwm chip" error. But as soon
as I hook up things so that pwm_get() returns the pwm-lpss
pwm0 I hit:
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=97330
I get the same pipe-a stuck (or not seeing vblank irqs?)
problems sometimes without the pwm-lpss driver in the loop
but then only sometimes and with pwm-lpss I get this
problem when loading the i915 driver most of the time
(but not all the time).
I've been debugging this a couple of evenings in a row
now (*) but no luck so far before I fixed the gpio and
assert/deassert swapping I had commented out the
chv_exec_gpio call otherwise the screen would go off
and never come back, with that call commented I was
seeing the same issue.
I was hoping that properly resetting the screen when
fbcon does its disable / re-enable dance would fix this,
but it does not :| Any hints would be greatly appreciated.
*) This series is one result of this, I also have some
designware i2c pmic mux fixes I need to post
MIPI_SEQ_BACKLIGHT_ON, /* sequence block v2+ */
MIPI_SEQ_BACKLIGHT_OFF, /* sequence block v2+ */
MIPI_SEQ_TEAR_ON, /* sequence block v2+ */
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dsi_panel_vbt.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dsi_panel_vbt.c
index 0d8f
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/dsi: Fix swapping of MIPI_SEQ_DEASSERT_RESET / MIPI_SEQ_ASSERT_RESET
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 01:38:57PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Looking at the ADF code from the Android kernel sources for a
> cherrytrail tablet I noticed that it is calling the
> MIPI_SEQ_ASSERT_RESET sequence from the panel prepare hook.
>
> Until commit b1cb1bd29189 ("drm/i915/dsi: update reset and power sequences
> in panel prepare/unprepare hooks") the mainline i915 code was doing the
> same. That commits effectively swaps the calling of MIPI_SEQ_ASSERT_RESET /
> MIPI_SEQ_DEASSERT_RESET.
>
> Looking at the naming of the sequences that is the right thing to do,
> but the problem is, that the old mainline code and the ADF code was
> actually calling the right sequence (tested on a cube iwork8 air tablet),
> and the swapping of the calling breaks things.
>
> This breakage was likely not noticed in testing because on cherrytrail,
> currently chv_exec_gpio ends up disabling the gpio pins rather then
> setting them (this is fixed in the next patch in this patch-set).
>
> This commit fixes the swapping by fixing MIPI_SEQ_ASSERT/DEASSERT_RESET's
> places in the enum defining them, so that their (new) names match their
> actual use.
>
> Fixes: b1cb1bd29189 ("drm/i915/dsi: update reset and power sequences...")
> Cc: Jani Nikula
> Cc: Ville Syrjälä
> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_bios.h | 4 ++--
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dsi_panel_vbt.c | 4 ++--
> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_bios.h
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_bios.h
> index 8405b5a..642a5eb 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_bios.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_bios.h
> @@ -49,11 +49,11 @@ struct edp_power_seq {
> /* MIPI Sequence Block definitions */
> enum mipi_seq {
> MIPI_SEQ_END = 0,
> - MIPI_SEQ_ASSERT_RESET,
> + MIPI_SEQ_DEASSERT_RESET,
> MIPI_SEQ_INIT_OTP,
> MIPI_SEQ_DISPLAY_ON,
> MIPI_SEQ_DISPLAY_OFF,
> - MIPI_SEQ_DEASSERT_RESET,
> + MIPI_SEQ_ASSERT_RESET,
That naming would be against the spec, so I don't think we want to do it
like this. Unless the spec is totally wrong, that is.
Can you provide the VBT for the affected machine so other people can
have a look at it?
> MIPI_SEQ_BACKLIGHT_ON, /* sequence block v2+ */
> MIPI_SEQ_BACKLIGHT_OFF, /* sequence block v2+ */
> MIPI_SEQ_TEAR_ON, /* sequence block v2+ */
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dsi_panel_vbt.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dsi_panel_vbt.c
> index 0d8ff00..579d2f5 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dsi_panel_vbt.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dsi_panel_vbt.c
> @@ -376,11 +376,11 @@ static const fn_mipi_elem_exec exec_elem[] = {
> */
>
> static const char * const seq_name[] = {
> - [MIPI_SEQ_ASSERT_RESET] = "MIPI_SEQ_ASSERT_RESET",
> + [MIPI_SEQ_DEASSERT_RESET] = "MIPI_SEQ_DEASSERT_RESET",
> [MIPI_SEQ_INIT_OTP] = "MIPI_SEQ_INIT_OTP",
> [MIPI_SEQ_DISPLAY_ON] = "MIPI_SEQ_DISPLAY_ON",
> [MIPI_SEQ_DISPLAY_OFF] = "MIPI_SEQ_DISPLAY_OFF",
> - [MIPI_SEQ_DEASSERT_RESET] = "MIPI_SEQ_DEASSERT_RESET",
> + [MIPI_SEQ_ASSERT_RESET] = "MIPI_SEQ_ASSERT_RESET",
> [MIPI_SEQ_BACKLIGHT_ON] = "MIPI_SEQ_BACKLIGHT_ON",
> [MIPI_SEQ_BACKLIGHT_OFF] = "MIPI_SEQ_BACKLIGHT_OFF",
> [MIPI_SEQ_TEAR_ON] = "MIPI_SEQ_TEAR_ON",
> --
> 2.9.3
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
