Quoting Bjorn Andersson (2021-10-06 11:05:09)
> On Wed 06 Oct 10:19 PDT 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>
> > Quoting Bjorn Andersson (2021-10-06 10:07:17)
> > > On Tue 05 Oct 21:26 PDT 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > >
> > > > Quoting Bjorn Andersson (2021-10-05 19:37:52)
> > > > > On Tue 05 Oct 19:06 PDT 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Quoting Bjorn Andersson (2021-10-05 18:43:16)
> > > > > > > On Tue 05 Oct 17:43 PDT 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Quoting Bjorn Andersson (2021-10-05 16:13:21)
> > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c
> > > > > > > > > index bdaf227f05dc..674cddfee5b0 100644
> > > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c
> > > > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c
> > > > > > > > > @@ -1233,7 +1239,7 @@ static int dp_display_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > > > > > > if (!dp)
> > > > > > > > > return -ENOMEM;
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > - desc = dp_display_get_desc(pdev);
> > > > > > > > > + desc = dp_display_get_desc(pdev, &dp->id);
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm sad that dp->id has to match the number in the SoC specific
> > > > > > > > dpu_intf_cfg array in drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c
> > > > > > > > still. Is there any way we can avoid that? Also, notice how those arrays
> > > > > > > > already have INTF_DP macros, which makes me think that it may be better
> > > > > > > > to connect this to those arrays instead of making an msm_dp_desc
> > > > > > > > structure and then make sure the 'type' member matches a connector
> > > > > > > > type number. Otherwise this code is super fragile.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm afraid I don't understand what you're proposing. Or which part you
> > > > > > > consider fragile, the indices of the INTF_DP instances aren't going to
> > > > > > > move around...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have N instances of the DP driver that I need to match to N entries
> > > > > > > from the platform specific intf array, I need some stable reference
> > > > > > > between them. When I started this journey I figured I could rely on the
> > > > > > > of_graph between the DPU and the interface controllers, but the values
> > > > > > > used there today are just bogus, so that was a no go.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We can use whatever, as long as _dpu_kms_initialize_displayport() can
> > > > > > > come up with an identifier to put in h_tile_instance[0] so that
> > > > > > > dpu_encoder_setup_display() can find the relevant INTF.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To make it more concrete we can look at sc7180
> > > > > >
> > > > > > static const struct dpu_intf_cfg sc7180_intf[] = {
> > > > > > INTF_BLK("intf_0", INTF_0, 0x6A000, INTF_DP, 0, 24,
> > > > > > INTF_SC7180_MASK, MDP_SSPP_TOP0_INTR, 24, 25),
> > > > > > ^
> > > > > > |
> > > > > >
> > > > > > intf0 is irrelevant. Also the address is irrelevant. But here we have a
> > > > > > zero, the number after INTF_DP, and that is very relevant. That number
> > > > > > needs to match the dp->id. Somewhere we have a match between
> > > > > > controller_id and dp->id in the code.
> > > > >
> > > > > That number (the 0, not INTF_0) is what the code matches against dp->id
> > > > > in _dpu_kms_initialize_displayport(), in order to figure out that this
> > > > > is INTF_0 in dpu_encoder_setup_display().
> > > > >
> > > > > I.e. look at the sc8180x patch:
> > > > >
> > > > > INTF_BLK("intf_0", INTF_0, 0x6A000, INTF_DP, 0, 24, INTF_SC8180X_MASK, MDP_SSPP_TOP0_INTR, 24, 25),
> > > > > INTF_BLK("intf_1", INTF_1, 0x6A800, INTF_DSI, 0, 24, INTF_SC8180X_MASK, MDP_SSPP_TOP0_INTR, 26, 27),
> > > > > INTF_BLK("intf_2", INTF_2, 0x6B000, INTF_DSI, 1, 24, INTF_SC8180X_MASK, MDP_SSPP_TOP0_INTR, 28, 29),
> > > > > /* INTF_3 is for MST, wired to INTF_DP 0 and 1, use dummy index until this is supported */
> > > > > INTF_BLK("intf_3", INTF_3, 0x6B800, INTF_DP, 999, 24, INTF_SC8180X_MASK, MDP_SSPP_TOP0_INTR, 30, 31),
> > > > > INTF_BLK("intf_4", INTF_4, 0x6C000, INTF_DP, 1, 24, INTF_SC8180X_MASK, MDP_SSPP_TOP0_INTR, 20, 21),
> > > > > INTF_BLK("intf_5", INTF_5, 0x6C800, INTF_DP, 2, 24, INTF_SC8180X_MASK, MDP_SSPP_TOP0_INTR, 22, 23),
> > > > >
> > > > > Where the DP driver defines the 3 controllers with dp->id of 0, 1 and 2,
> > > > > which the DPU code will match against to INTF_0, INTF_4 and INTF_5.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yep. I'm saying that having to make that number in this intf array match
> > > > the order of the register mapping descriptor array is fragile. Why can't
> > > > we indicate the interface is DP or eDP with INTF_DP or INTF_EDP and then
> > > > map from the descriptor array to this intf array somehow so that the
> > > > order of the descriptor array doesn't matter? Then we don't have to put
> > > > the connector type in the descriptor array, and we don't have to keep
> > > > the order of the array a certain way to match this intf descriptor.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe
> > > >
> > > > struct msm_dp_desc {
> > > > phys_addr_t io_start;
> > > > unsigned int id;
> > >
> > > The INTF_<N> constants are a property of the DPU driver and not
> > > available in the DP driver and the msm_dp struct is a property of the DP
> > > driver and can't be dereferenced in the DPU driver.
> > >
> > > The proposed way around this is that the descs array defines the order
> > > in priv->dp[N] and this N is used as controller_id.
> >
> > I'm pretty sure I'm following along.
> >
> > >
> > > So the only thing that I don't find straight forward here is that the
> > > eDP controller is considered just a DP controller, so you have to use
> > > INTF_DP, <N> for that, and not just INTF_EDP, 0.
> > >
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > and then have msm_dp_desc::id equal INTF_<N> and then look through the
> > > > intf from DPU here in the DP driver to find the id and type of connector
> > > > that should be used by default? Still sort of fragile because the only
> > > > connection is an unsigned int which isn't great, but at least it's
> > > > explicit instead of implicit based on the array order.
> > >
> > > No matter how I look at this, you need to put some number somewhere here
> > > that will be used to match up the INTF with the right DSI/DP encoder.
> >
> > Correct.
> >
> > >
> > > Using the proposed number scheme follows the numbering of all the DP
> > > controllers from the documentation.
> > >
> >
> > Maybe I can make a better example. I have this for sc7280 in dpu_hw_catalog.c:
> >
> > static const struct dpu_intf_cfg sc7280_intf[] = {
> > INTF_BLK("intf_0", INTF_0, 0x34000, INTF_DP, CONTROLLER_ID_A, 24,
> > INTF_SC7280_MASK, MDP_SSPP_TOP0_INTR, 24, 25),
> > INTF_BLK("intf_1", INTF_1, 0x35000, INTF_DSI, 0, 24,
> > INTF_SC7280_MASK, MDP_SSPP_TOP0_INTR, 26, 27),
> > INTF_BLK("intf_5", INTF_5, 0x39000, INTF_DP, CONTROLLER_ID_B, 24,
> > INTF_SC7280_MASK, MDP_SSPP_TOP0_INTR, 22, 23),
> > };
> >
> > And then this array for sc7280 in dp_display.c:
> >
> > static const struct msm_dp_desc sc7280_dp_cfg = {
> > .desc = {
> > [CONTROLLER_ID_A] = { 0xaea0000, DRM_MODE_CONNECTOR_eDP },
> > [CONTROLLER_ID_B] = { 0xae90000, DRM_MODE_CONNECTOR_DisplayPort },
> > },
> > .num_dp = 2,
> > };
> >
> > So these two arrays must match based on CONTROLLER_ID_{A,B}. I don't
> > like having to make these two numbers match so if it was explicit, even
> > possibly by having a bunch of macros put in both places then I would be
> > happy. I spent a few hours when I messed up the order of the
> > sc7280_dp_cfg.desc array trying to figure out why things weren't
> > working.
>
> So essentially, you didn't know that the controller_id has to match the
> index in priv->dsi[] and priv->dp[] and providing a define for them
> would make this more obvious?
Now you got it!
>
> I think per your argument the 0 following INTF_DSI should also be using
> this scheme, so we'd have multiple CONTROLLER_ID_A, which probably is
> confusing as well.
Agreed.
>
> I tried it out with below patch; it documents the relationship, provides
> constants for the magic 2 and 3 for number of DSI and DP controllers in
> struct msm_drm_private.
>
> I like it.
Thanks. I prefer this approach as well. I can see now why qcom always
wants to change the output ports on the DPU node in DT to match the
INTF number. If they would have described this problem it may have made
sense to have the graph endpoints with reg properties matching the
interface number in the intf array. Sigh.
