Hi, On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 4:44 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 11:07 PM Cong Yang > <yangcong5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > At present, we have found that there may be a problem of blurred > > screen during fast sleep/resume. The direct cause of the blurred > > screen is that the IC does not receive 0x28/0x10. Because of the > > particularity of the IC, before the panel enters sleep hid must > > stop scanning, i2c_hid_core_suspend before ili9882t_disable. > > This doesn't look very spec-compliant. > > Presumably you could be more spec compliant if we used > "panel_follower" in this case? Would that be a better solution? In the "panel_follower" solution, the phenomenon is the same. The current order is ili9882t_disable=>i2c_hid_core_suspend=>elan_i2c_hid_power_down=>ili9882t_unprepare, ili9882t need touchpanel stop scanning,i2c_hid_core_suspend before ili9882t_disable. > > > > So in order to solve this > > problem, the IC can handle it through the exception mechanism when > > it cannot receive 0X28/0X10 command. Handling exceptions requires a reset > > 50ms delay. Refer to vendor detailed analysis [1]. > > > > Ilitek vendor also suggested switching the page before entering sleep to > > avoid panel IC not receiving 0x28/0x10 command. > > > > Note: 0x28 is display off, 0x10 is sleep in. > > > > [1]: https://github.com/ILITEK-LoganLin/Document/tree/main/ILITEK_Power_Sequence > > > > Signed-off-by: Cong Yang <yangcong5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-ilitek-ili9882t.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++++- > > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-ilitek-ili9882t.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-ilitek-ili9882t.c > > index bbfcffe65623..0a1dd987b204 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-ilitek-ili9882t.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-ilitek-ili9882t.c > > @@ -423,6 +423,23 @@ static inline struct ili9882t *to_ili9882t(struct drm_panel *panel) > > return container_of(panel, struct ili9882t, base); > > } > > > > +static int ili9882t_switch_page(struct mipi_dsi_device *dsi, u8 page) > > +{ > > + u8 switch_cmd[] = {0x98, 0x82, 0x00}; > > Can't you just replace the last 0x00 above with "page" and get rid of > the manual assignment below? > > > > + int ret; > > + > > + switch_cmd[2] = page; > > + > > + ret = mipi_dsi_dcs_write(dsi, ILI9882T_DCS_SWITCH_PAGE, switch_cmd, 3); > > Instead of hardcoding 3, should use ARRAY_SIZE(). > > > > + if (ret) { > > + dev_err(&dsi->dev, > > + "error switching panel controller page (%d)\n", ret); > > + return ret; > > + } > > + > > + return 0; > > +} > > optional: It feels like it would be nice to somehow use the > "_INIT_SWITCH_PAGE_CMD" macro I suggested in patch #1 instead of > having to hardcode 0x98, 0x82 again. In patch #1 I already suggested > breaking out the function to send a sequence of commands. If you had > that function take a pointer instead of hardcoding it to look at > ->init_cmds then you could probably use the same function that you do > at init time? > > > > static int ili9882t_enter_sleep_mode(struct ili9882t *ili) > > { > > struct mipi_dsi_device *dsi = ili->dsi; > > @@ -444,8 +461,10 @@ static int ili9882t_enter_sleep_mode(struct ili9882t *ili) > > static int ili9882t_disable(struct drm_panel *panel) > > { > > struct ili9882t *ili = to_ili9882t(panel); > > + struct mipi_dsi_device *dsi = ili->dsi; > > int ret; > > > > + ili9882t_switch_page(dsi, 0x00); > > ret = ili9882t_enter_sleep_mode(ili); > > if (ret < 0) { > > dev_err(panel->dev, "failed to set panel off: %d\n", ret); > > @@ -507,7 +526,7 @@ static int ili9882t_prepare(struct drm_panel *panel) > > gpiod_set_value(ili->enable_gpio, 1); > > usleep_range(1000, 2000); > > gpiod_set_value(ili->enable_gpio, 0); > > - usleep_range(1000, 2000); > > + usleep_range(40000, 50000); > > nit: use 40000, 41000 instead of 40000, 50000. Linux almost always > uses the longer delay, so that'll save ~9 ms. The only reason for the > range is to optimize kernel wakeups which is really not a concern > here. We need 50ms delay to meet the requirement.
