Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] DSI/DBI and TinyDRM driver

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Daniel,

Le mer. 8 juil. 2020 à 9:23, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> a écrit :
On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 04:32:25PM +0200, Noralf Trønnes wrote:
 (cc Dillon)

 Den 03.07.2020 19.26, skrev Sam Ravnborg:
 > Hi Noralf/Paul.
 >
 > Trying to stir up this discussion again.
 >
 > On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 06:36:22PM +0200, Noralf Trønnes wrote:
 >>
 >>
 >> Den 07.06.2020 15.38, skrev Paul Cercueil:
 >>> Hi,
 >>>
>>> Here's a follow-up on the previous discussion about the current state of
 >>> DSI/DBI panel drivers, TinyDRM, and the need of a cleanup.
 >>>
 >>> This patchset introduces the following:
>>> * It slightly tweaks the MIPI DSI code so that it supports MIPI DBI over >>> various buses. This patch has been tested with a non-upstream DRM >>> panel driver for a ILI9331 DBI/8080 panel, written with the DSI >>> framework (and doesn't include <drm/drm_mipi_dbi.h>), and non-upstream
 >>>   DSI/DBI host driver for the Ingenic SoCs.
 >>>
>>> * A SPI DBI host driver, using the current MIPI DSI framework. It allows >>> MIPI DSI/DBI drivers to be written with the DSI framework, even if >>> they are connected over SPI, instead of registering as SPI device >>> drivers. Since most of these panels can be connected over various >>> buses, it permits to reuse the same driver independently of the bus
 >>>   used.
 >>>
>>> * A TinyDRM driver for DSI/DBI panels, once again independent of the bus >>> used; the only dependency (currently) being that the panel must
 >>>   understand DCS commands.
 >>>
>>> * A DRM panel driver to test the stack. This driver controls Ilitek >>> ILI9341 based DBI panels, like the Adafruit YX240QV29-T 320x240 2.4"
 >>>   TFT LCD panel. This panel was converted from
 >>>   drivers/gpu/drm/tiny/ili9341.c.
 >>>
>>> I would like to emphasize that while it has been compile-tested, I did
 >>> not test it with real hardware since I do not have any DBI panel
>>> connected over SPI. I did runtime-test the code, just without any panel
 >>> connected.
 >>>
>>> Another thing to note, is that it does not break Device Tree ABI. The
 >>> display node stays the same:
 >>>
 >>> display@0 {
 >>> 	compatible = "adafruit,yx240qv29", "ilitek,ili9341";
 >>> 	reg = <0>;
 >>> 	spi-max-frequency = <32000000>;
 >>> 	dc-gpios = <&gpio0 9 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
 >>> 	reset-gpios = <&gpio0 8 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
 >>> 	rotation = <270>;
 >>> 	backlight = <&backlight>;
 >>> };
 >>>
>>> The reason it works, is that the "adafruit,yx240qv29" device is probed >>> on the SPI bus, so it will match with the SPI/DBI host driver. This will >>> in turn register the very same node with the DSI bus, and the ILI9341 >>> DRM panel driver will probe. The driver will detect that no controller >>> is linked to the panel, and eventually register the DBI/DSI TinyDRM
 >>> driver.
 >>>
>>> I can't stress it enough that this is a RFC, so it still has very rough
 >>> edges.
 >>>
 >>
>> I don't know bridge and dsi drivers so I can't comment on that, but one >> thing I didn't like is that the DT compatible string has to be added to
 >> 2 different modules.
 >>
>> As an example, a MI0283QT panel (ILI9341) supports these interface options:
 >>
 >> 1. SPI
 >>    Panel setup/control and framebuffer upload over SPI
 >>
 >> 2. SPI + DPI
 >>    Panel setup/control over SPI, framebuffer scanout over DPI
 >>
 >> 3. Parallel bus
 >>    Panel setup/control and framebuffer upload over parallel bus
 >
 > To continue the configurations we should support:
> - Panels where the chip can be configured to SPI, SPI+DPI, Parallel bus
 >   (as detailed by Noralf above)
> - Panels that supports only 6800 or 8080 - connected via GPIO pins or
 >   memory mapped (maybe behind some special IP to support this)
 >   Command set is often special.
 >
> We will see a number of chips with many different types of displays. > So the drivers should be chip specific with configuration depending on
 > the connected display.
 >
> What I hope we can find a solution for is a single file/driver that can
 > support all the relevant interface types for a chip.
 > So we would end up with a single file that included the necessary
> support for ili9341 in all interface configurations with the necessary
 > support for the relevant displays.
 >
> I do not know how far we are from this as I have not dived into the
 > details of any of the proposals.

 In an ideal world I would have liked to see the MIPI DBI parallel
interface implemented using a new Linux parallel bus type. It could have drivers for gpio bitbanging and mmio in addition to other hw specific drivers. Now we could have a drm_mipi_dbi DRM driver that registers as a
 SPI client driver and a Parallel bus client driver. Or it can be a
 component driver for the existing DRM driver on the SoC.

 I had plans to do this and made a prototype, but dropped it since it
would probably require a lot of work getting in a new Linux bus type.

Channelling my inner Greg KH:

Please just create a new bus, it should be quite easy and boilerplate is
manageable.

The bus is already here, it's "mipi-dsi". DBI and DSI are basically the same thing, just that one is parallel and the other is serial.

-Paul

Greg, did I get this right? Maybe any recommendations for a simple
parallel bus with perhaps different register access paths depending upon
how it's all wired up exactly?
-Daniel

 However if we're going to treat this parallel bus only as a MIPI DBI
display interface but support gpio bitbanging and mmio as well, then we
 could add DRM drivers for each MIPI DBI bus (that don't have special
 parallel bus hw):
 - mipi-dbi-spi
 - mipi-dbi-gpio
 - mipi-dbi-mmio

These drivers will register as a mipi_dsi_host adapted like Paul suggested.

The panel drivers will be mipi_dsi_drivers. Now the panels should work regardless of bus type. They probably need to know about the bus type,
 at least whether the parallell bus is 8-bit or 16-bit wide.

 The current MIPI DBI SPI drivers (drm/tiny) will need to be treated
 specially to keep working with old Device Trees when moved over to
 drm/panel.

 Noralf.


 >>
>> My suggestion is to have one panel driver module that can support all of
 >> these like this:
 > So I think we agree here.
 >
 >>
 >> For 1. and 2. a SPI driver is registered and if I understand your
>> example correctly of_graph_get_port_by_id() can be used during probe to >> distinguish between the 2 options and register a full DRM driver for 1.
 >> and add a DRM panel for 2.
 >>
>> For 3. a DSI driver is registered (adapted for DBI use like you're
 >> suggesting).
 >>
>> Note that the interface part of the controller initialization will >> differ between these, the panel side init will be the same I assume.
 >
 > 	Sam
 >

--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch


_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel




[Index of Archives]     [Linux DRI Users]     [Linux Intel Graphics]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux