On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 11:02:25AM GMT, Jerome Brunet wrote:
> On Wed 26 Jun 2024 at 07:41, Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 04:25:50PM GMT, Jerome Brunet wrote:
> >> Add support for the Lincoln LCD197 1080x1920 DSI panel.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/gpu/drm/panel/Kconfig | 11 +
> >> drivers/gpu/drm/panel/Makefile | 1 +
> >> drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-lincoln-lcd197.c | 333 +++++++++++++++++++
> >> 3 files changed, 345 insertions(+)
> >> create mode 100644 drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-lincoln-lcd197.c
> >>
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> +
> >> + mipi_dsi_dcs_write_seq(lcd->dsi, 0xB9, 0xFF, 0x83, 0x99);
> >
> > - Please use lowercase hex instead
> > - Please consider switching to _multi() functions.
>
> Could you be a bit more specific about these '_multi' function ?
> I've looked at 'drm_mipi_dsi.h' and can't really make what you mean.
>
> Maybe I'm not looking in the right place.
What is your baseline? Please see commits 966e397e4f60 ("drm/mipi-dsi:
Introduce mipi_dsi_*_write_seq_multi()") and f79d6d28d8fe
("drm/mipi-dsi: wrap more functions for streamline handling") (and
66055636a146 ("drm/mipi-dsi: fix handling of ctx in mipi_dsi_msleep") as
it fixes a mistake in those two).
>
> >
> >
> >> + usleep_range(200, 300);
> >
> > This will require new helper msm_dsi_usleep_range(ctx, 200, 300);
>
> I don't really understand why I would need something else to just sleep
> ? Could you add some context please ?
>
> Isn't 'msm_' usually something Qcom specific ?
Yes, mipi_dsi_usleep_range(). Mea culpa.
> >> + mipi_dsi_dcs_write_seq(lcd->dsi, 0xB6, 0x92, 0x92);
> >> + mipi_dsi_dcs_write_seq(lcd->dsi, 0xCC, 0x00);
> >> + mipi_dsi_dcs_write_seq(lcd->dsi, 0xBF, 0x40, 0x41, 0x50, 0x49);
> >> + mipi_dsi_dcs_write_seq(lcd->dsi, 0xC6, 0xFF, 0xF9);
> >> + mipi_dsi_dcs_write_seq(lcd->dsi, 0xC0, 0x25, 0x5A);
> >> + mipi_dsi_dcs_write_seq(lcd->dsi, MIPI_DCS_SET_ADDRESS_MODE, 0x02);
> >> +
> >> + err = mipi_dsi_dcs_exit_sleep_mode(lcd->dsi);
> >> + if (err < 0) {
> >> + dev_err(panel->dev, "failed to exit sleep mode: %d\n", err);
> >> + goto poweroff;
> >> + }
> >> + msleep(120);
> >> +
> >> + err = mipi_dsi_dcs_read(lcd->dsi, MIPI_DCS_GET_DISPLAY_ID, display_id, 3);
> >
> > This probably needs new _multi helper too.
> >
> >> + if (err < 0) {
> >> + dev_err(panel->dev, "Failed to read display id: %d\n", err);
> >> + } else {
> >> + dev_dbg(panel->dev, "Display id: 0x%02x-0x%02x-0x%02x\n",
> >> + display_id[0], display_id[1], display_id[2]);
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + lcd->prepared = true;
> >
> > Should not be required anymore.
>
> The whole driver is heavily inspired by what is already in
> drivers/gpu/drm/panel/ and a lot are doing something similar.
>
> Maybe there has been a change since then and the existing have been
> reworked yet. Would you mind pointing me that change if that is
> the case ?
See d2aacaf07395 ("drm/panel: Check for already prepared/enabled in
drm_panel")
>
> >
> >> +
> >> + return 0;
> >> +
> >> +poweroff:
> >> + gpiod_set_value_cansleep(lcd->enable_gpio, 0);
> >> + gpiod_set_value_cansleep(lcd->reset_gpio, 1);
> >> + regulator_disable(lcd->supply);
> >> +
> >> + return err;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >
> >> +
> >> +static const struct drm_display_mode default_mode = {
> >> + .clock = 154002,
> >> + .hdisplay = 1080,
> >> + .hsync_start = 1080 + 20,
> >> + .hsync_end = 1080 + 20 + 6,
> >> + .htotal = 1080 + 204,
> >> + .vdisplay = 1920,
> >> + .vsync_start = 1920 + 4,
> >> + .vsync_end = 1920 + 4 + 4,
> >> + .vtotal = 1920 + 79,
> >> + .flags = DRM_MODE_FLAG_NHSYNC | DRM_MODE_FLAG_NVSYNC,
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +static int lincoln_lcd197_panel_get_modes(struct drm_panel *panel,
> >> + struct drm_connector *connector)
> >> +{
> >> + struct drm_display_mode *mode;
> >> +
> >> + mode = drm_mode_duplicate(connector->dev, &default_mode);
> >> + if (!mode) {
> >> + dev_err(panel->dev, "failed to add mode %ux%u@%u\n",
> >> + default_mode.hdisplay, default_mode.vdisplay,
> >> + drm_mode_vrefresh(&default_mode));
> >> + return -ENOMEM;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + drm_mode_set_name(mode);
> >> + drm_mode_probed_add(connector, mode);
> >> + connector->display_info.width_mm = 79;
> >> + connector->display_info.height_mm = 125;
> >
> > drm_connector_helper_get_modes_fixed()
>
> Thanks for the hint
>
> >
> >> +
> >> + return 1;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >
> >
> >> +
> >> +static void lincoln_lcd197_panel_shutdown(struct mipi_dsi_device *dsi)
> >> +{
> >> + struct lincoln_lcd197_panel *lcd = mipi_dsi_get_drvdata(dsi);
> >> +
> >> + drm_panel_disable(&lcd->panel);
> >> + drm_panel_unprepare(&lcd->panel);
> >> +}
> >
> > I think the agreement was that there should be no need for the panel's
> > shutdown, the DRM driver should shutdown the panel.
>
> I'm happy to drop that if there is such agreement. Again, most panel
> drivers do implement that callback so I just did the same.
>
> Could you point me to this 'agreement' please, so I can get a better
> understanding of it ?
Quoting one of commit messages:
It's the responsibility of a correctly written DRM modeset driver to
call drm_atomic_helper_shutdown() at shutdown time and that should be
disabling / unpreparing the panel if needed. Panel drivers shouldn't
be calling these functions themselves.
I could not describe it better.
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
