On Thu, 12 May 2022 09:44, Maxime Ripard <maxime@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 05:59:13AM -0700, Guillaume Ranquet wrote:
>> >> +#include <drm/drm_atomic_helper.h>
>> >> +#include <drm/drm_bridge.h>
>> >> +#include <drm/drm_crtc.h>
>> >> +#include <drm/dp/drm_dp_helper.h>
>> >> +#include <drm/drm_edid.h>
>> >> +#include <drm/drm_of.h>
>> >> +#include <drm/drm_panel.h>
>> >> +#include <drm/drm_print.h>
>> >> +#include <drm/drm_probe_helper.h>
>> >> +#include <linux/arm-smccc.h>
>> >> +#include <linux/clk.h>
>> >> +#include <linux/delay.h>
>> >> +#include <linux/errno.h>
>> >> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
>> >> +#include <linux/mfd/syscon.h>
>> >> +#include <linux/nvmem-consumer.h>
>> >> +#include <linux/of.h>
>> >> +#include <linux/of_irq.h>
>> >> +#include <linux/of_platform.h>
>> >> +#include <linux/phy/phy.h>
>> >> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
>> >> +#include <linux/pm_runtime.h>
>> >> +#include <linux/regmap.h>
>> >> +#include <sound/hdmi-codec.h>
>> >> +#include <video/videomode.h>
>> >> +
>> >> +#include "mtk_dp_reg.h"
>> >> +
>> >> +#define MTK_DP_AUX_WAIT_REPLY_COUNT 20
>> >> +#define MTK_DP_CHECK_SINK_CAP_TIMEOUT_COUNT 3
>> >> +
>> >> +//TODO: platform/device data or dts?
>> >
>> >DTS :)
>>
>> It's probably going to be a platform_data struct for v10...
>> If I have time, I'll change it to a dts property for v10.
>
>I can't really imagine a case where we would need platform_data
>nowadays. If you have a device tree, then it should be part of the
>binding.
>
>What issue would you like to address by using a platform_data?
>
Ok, I'll migrate to dt then. I didn't realize platform_data were depreciated.
Angelo wants the MAX_LINRATE and MAX_LANES defines to be configurable.
I imagined platform_data would be more appropriate as (per my understanding) the
limitation is associated with a specific SoC.
>> >> +static enum drm_connector_status mtk_dp_bdg_detect(struct drm_bridge *bridge)
>> >> +{
>> >> + return connector_status_connected;
>> >> +}
>> >
>> >I'm not quite sure what's going on there. You seem to have some support
>> >for HPD interrupts above, but you always report the display as
>> >connected?
>> >
>> >I'd assume that either you don't have HPD support and then always report
>> >it as connected, or you have HPD support and report the current status
>> >in detect, but that combination seems weird.
>>
>> The HPD logic needs more work, some things have been broken when I split
>> the driver into three patches eDP - DP - Audio
>> The assumption at first was that eDP didn't need any HPD handling... but it
>> seems I was wrong and the eDP driver needs to be reworked.
>
>That can be made into a patch of its own if you prefer.
>
>You first introduce the driver without status reporting (always
>returning connected or unknown), and then add the needed bits for HPD.
>
>However, that first patch shouldn't contain the interrupt plumbing and
>so on, it's just confusing.
>
After discussing a while with Mediatek, it appears that hot plug detection
needs to be handled even for eDP... (which is always connected).
So I'll revert to the split I made earlier in v8 where hot plug detection was
part of the eDP patch the addition of the External display port was a
trivial patch [1].
>> >> +static struct edid *mtk_dp_get_edid(struct drm_bridge *bridge,
>> >> + struct drm_connector *connector)
>> >> +{
>> >> + struct mtk_dp *mtk_dp = mtk_dp_from_bridge(bridge);
>> >> + bool enabled = mtk_dp->enabled;
>> >> + struct edid *new_edid = NULL;
>> >> +
>> >> + if (!enabled)
>> >> + drm_bridge_chain_pre_enable(bridge);
>> >> +
>> >> + drm_dp_dpcd_writeb(&mtk_dp->aux, DP_SET_POWER, DP_SET_POWER_D0);
>> >> + usleep_range(2000, 5000);
>> >> +
>> >> + if (mtk_dp_plug_state(mtk_dp))
>> >> + new_edid = drm_get_edid(connector, &mtk_dp->aux.ddc);
>> >> +
>> >> + if (!enabled)
>> >> + drm_bridge_chain_post_disable(bridge);
>> >
>> >Are you sure we can't get a mode set while get_edid is called?
>> >
>> >If we can, then you could end up disabling the device while it's being
>> >powered on.
>>
>> I'm a bit unsure, I need to spend more time in the drm stack to make sure.
>> I'll get back to you when I have a definitive answer.
>
>So, it looks like it's ok.
>
>get_edid is your implementation of get_modes, which is called by
>drm_helper_probe_single_connector_modes
>
>https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c#L416
>
>This is the standard implemantion of fill_modes, which is called
>whenever the get_connector ioctl is called (or similar paths, like
>drm_client_modeset_probe)
>
>drm_helper_probe_single_connector_modes is under the assumption that the
>mode_config.mutex is held though, and that the big lock. So it should be
>serialized there.
>
>Just for future proofing though, it would be better to use refcounting
>there. Would runtime_pm work for you there?
>
Thx for looking into this for me.
Not sure runtime_pm works here as it would only refcount if compiled
with CONFIG_PM?
I'd rather use the enabled field as a refcounter instead of a boolean.
Unless I'm totally missing your point?
Thx,
Guillaume.
>> >> +static void mtk_dp_parse_drm_mode_timings(struct mtk_dp *mtk_dp,
>> >> + struct drm_display_mode *mode)
>> >> +{
>> >> + struct mtk_dp_timings *timings = &mtk_dp->info.timings;
>> >> +
>> >> + drm_display_mode_to_videomode(mode, &timings->vm);
>> >> + timings->frame_rate = mode->clock * 1000 / mode->htotal / mode->vtotal;
>> >
>> >drm_mode_vrefresh()
>> >
>> >> + timings->htotal = mode->htotal;
>> >> + timings->vtotal = mode->vtotal;
>> >> +}
>> >
>> >It's not really clear to me why you need to duplicate drm_display_mode
>> >here?
>> >
>> It's saved to be re-used in mtk_dp_set_msa().
>> It's not ideal, I'll check if I can get the mode directly from mtk_dp_set_msa()
>
>Yeah, it looks like mtk_dp_set_msa() uses fairly straightforward values,
>this will be just as easy with drm_display_mode.
>
>Maxime
[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-mediatek/patch/20220218145437.18563-17-granquet@xxxxxxxxxxxx/
