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.reding@xxxxxxxxx> 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 <anarsoul@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > .../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). -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
