Hi Sakari,
Thanks for your review.
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 03:43:57PM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > +/*
> > + * Minimum D-PHY timings based on MIPI D-PHY specification. Derived
> > + * from the valid ranges specified in Section 6.9, Table 14, Page 41
> > + * of the D-PHY specification (v2.1).
>
> I assume these values are compliant with the earlier spec releases.
I have access to the versions 1.2 and 2.1 of the spec and as far as I
can tell, they match here. I can't really say for other releases, but
I wouldn't expect any changes (and it can always be adjusted later on
if needed).
> > + */
> > +int phy_mipi_dphy_get_default_config(unsigned long pixel_clock,
>
> How about using the bus frequency instead of the pixel clock? Chances are
> that the caller already has that information, instead of calculating it
> here?
I went for the pixel clock since it's something that all drivers will
have access too without any computation. The bus frequency can be
available as well in v4l2, but won't be in DRM, and that would require
for all drivers to duplicate that computation, which doesn't seem like
a good choice.
> > + unsigned int bpp,
> > + unsigned int lanes,
> > + struct phy_configure_opts_mipi_dphy *cfg)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long hs_clk_rate;
> > + unsigned long ui;
> > +
> > + if (!cfg)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + hs_clk_rate = pixel_clock * bpp / lanes;
> > + ui = DIV_ROUND_UP(NSEC_PER_SEC, hs_clk_rate);
>
> Nanoseconds may not be precise enough for practical computations on these
> values. At 1 GHz, this ends up being precisely 1. At least Intel hardware
> has some more precision, I presume others do, too. How about using
> picoseconds instead?
Sounds like a good idea.
> > +
> > + cfg->clk_miss = 0;
> > + cfg->clk_post = 60 + 52 * ui;
> > + cfg->clk_pre = 8;
> > + cfg->clk_prepare = 38;
> > + cfg->clk_settle = 95;
> > + cfg->clk_term_en = 0;
> > + cfg->clk_trail = 60;
> > + cfg->clk_zero = 262;
> > + cfg->d_term_en = 0;
> > + cfg->eot = 0;
> > + cfg->hs_exit = 100;
> > + cfg->hs_prepare = 40 + 4 * ui;
> > + cfg->hs_zero = 105 + 6 * ui;
> > + cfg->hs_settle = 85 + 6 * ui;
> > + cfg->hs_skip = 40;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * The MIPI D-PHY specification (Section 6.9, v1.2, Table 14, Page 40)
> > + * contains this formula as:
> > + *
> > + * T_HS-TRAIL = max(n * 8 * ui, 60 + n * 4 * ui)
> > + *
> > + * where n = 1 for forward-direction HS mode and n = 4 for reverse-
> > + * direction HS mode. There's only one setting and this function does
> > + * not parameterize on anything other that ui, so this code will
> > + * assumes that reverse-direction HS mode is supported and uses n = 4.
> > + */
> > + cfg->hs_trail = max(4 * 8 * ui, 60 + 4 * 4 * ui);
> > +
> > + cfg->init = 100000;
> > + cfg->lpx = 60;
> > + cfg->ta_get = 5 * cfg->lpx;
> > + cfg->ta_go = 4 * cfg->lpx;
> > + cfg->ta_sure = 2 * cfg->lpx;
> > + cfg->wakeup = 1000000;
> > +
> > + cfg->hs_clk_rate = hs_clk_rate;
>
> How about the LP clock?
>
> Frankly, I have worked with MIPI CSI-2 hardware soon a decade, and the very
> few cases where software has needed to deal with these values has been in
> form of defaults for a receiver, mostly limiting to clk_settle,
> clk_term_en, d_term_en as well as hs_settle. On some hardware, the data
> lane specific values can be at least in theory configured separately on
> different lanes (but perhaps we could ignore that now).
>
> That doesn't say that it'd be useless to convey these values to the PHY
> though. What I'm a little worried about though is what could be the effect
> of adding support for this for existing drivers? If you have a new driver,
> then there is no chance of regressions.
>
> I can't help noticing that many of the above values end up being unused in
> the rest of the patches in the set. I guess that's ok, they come from the
> standard anyway and some hardware may need them to be configured.
In order to get these parameters, I went through all the MIPI-DSI and
MIPI-CSI drivers currently in the tree that could be converted, and
looked at which parameters they needed to exchange with their PHY.
I made a summary to Kishon in the previous iteration here:
https://lwn.net/ml/linux-media/20180919121436.ztjnxofe66quddeq@flea/
So it looks like the set of parameters on the MIPI-CSI side is indeed
pretty limited, it really isn't for MIPI-DSI, and the whole point here
is to support both :/
> Then there's the question of where should these values originate from.
> Some drivers appear to have a need to obtain one of these values via
> firmware, see Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/samsung-mipi-csis.txt
> . I presume the defaults should be applicable to most cases, and specific
> values would need to be defined in the firmware. That means that the
> defaults have effectively the property of firmware API, meaning that they
> effectively can never be changed. That suggests we should be pretty sure
> the defaults are something that should work for the widest possible set of
> the hardware.
That function here is made to provide the spec default for those
values. Any driver is free to change those defaults, as long as they
remain within the spec boundaries of course. And I'd say that how the
drivers need to get those non-default values would be driver specific,
it shouldn't really impact the API here.
Thanks!
Maxime
--
Maxime Ripard, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
