Hi Andrzej,
On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 10:11:47PM +0200, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> On 25.10.2021 13:21, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 01:00:10PM +0200, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> >> On 21.10.2021 22:21, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 12:29:01PM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> >>>> Right now, the chaining order of
> >>>> pre_enable/enable/disable/post_disable looks like this:
> >>>>
> >>>> pre_enable: start from connector and move to encoder
> >>>> enable: start from encoder and move to connector
> >>>> disable: start from connector and move to encoder
> >>>> post_disable: start from encoder and move to connector
> >>>>
> >>>> In the above, it can be seen that at least pre_enable() and
> >>>> post_disable() are opposites of each other and enable() and disable()
> >>>> are opposites. However, it seems broken that pre_enable() and enable()
> >>>> would not move in the same direction. In other parts of Linux you can
> >>>> see that various stages move in the same order. For instance, during
> >>>> system suspend the "early" calls run in the same order as the normal
> >>>> calls run in the same order as the "late" calls run in the same order
> >>>> as the "noirq" calls.
> >>>>
> >>>> Let fix the above so that it makes more sense. Now we'll have:
> >>>>
> >>>> pre_enable: start from encoder and move to connector
> >>>> enable: start from encoder and move to connector
> >>>> disable: start from connector and move to encoder
> >>>> post_disable: start from connector and move to encoder
> >>>>
> >>>> This order is chosen because if there are parent-child relationships
> >>>> anywhere I would expect that the encoder would be a parent and the
> >>>> connector a child--not the other way around.
> >>>
> >>> This makes good sense as you describe it. I hope others can add more
> >>> useful feedback.
> >>> Added Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@xxxxxxxxx> to the mail, as he have
> >>> expressed concerns with the chain of bridges before.
> >>
> >> Thanks Sam, but I am not sure about useful feedback - when I see bridge
> >> chain issues it automatically triggers "whining mode" in my head :)
> >>
> >>>> This can be important when using the DP AUX bus to instantiate a
> >>>> panel. The DP AUX bus is likely part of a bridge driver and is a
> >>>> parent of the panel. We'd like the bridge to be pre_enabled before the
> >>>> panel and the panel to be post_disabled before the
> >>>> bridge. Specifically, this allows pm_runtime_put_sync_suspend() in a
> >>>> bridge driver's post_suspend to work properly even a panel is under
> >>>> it.
> >>>>
> >>>> NOTE: it's entirely possible that this change could break someone who
> >>>> was relying on the old order. Hopefully this isn't the case, but if
> >>>> this does break someone it seems like it's better to do it sonner
> >>>> rather than later so we can fix everyone to handle the order that
> >>>> makes the most sense.
> >>
> >> It will break for sure. So the question is: if it is worth changing?
> >>
> >> New order seems good for eDP, DSI sinks [1], probably other as well.
> >>
> >> Old order is better for example for THC63LVD1024 [2 p. 20], I guess for
> >> many other sinks as well.
> >>
> >> I am not even sure if it is protocol specific (LVDS, RGB, HDMI,...), or
> >> it depends on specific hw pairs (source->sink).
> >>
> >> This is why I complain about the bridge chain - assumption that one
> >> fixed call order will work for all setups seems to me ridiculous.
> >>
> >> Going back to the question - changing the order from fixed one to
> >> another fixed one will not solve general issue.
> >>
> >> What can we do then?
> >>
> >> 1. Configurable call order? Probably doable: every chain element should
> >> expose info if it's call should be before or after source, then some
> >> core helper will create queue of callbacks. Seems quite complicated,
> >> hides the logic from implementer and not fully flexible (for example,
> >> there are protocols which require to perform sth on source, then on
> >> sink, then again on the source).
> >>
> >> 2. Stop using bridge chain and call sink ops directly from the source
> >> (this is what Exynos and VC4 do): is flexible and straightforward, gives
> >> full control to the source.
> >
> > And breaks interoperability, because different sources end up calling
> > operations in different orders. We end up having different sinks that
> > expect calls in different ways, and divide the world in sink/source
> > groups that don't interoperate :-(
>
> I have an impression you describe current status :) More seriously, it
> is matter of proper specification/documentation/implementations of the
> operations. If we really need strict constraints we could try to
> implement them on protocol level.
I certainly wouldn't complain if we had better documented operations :-)
> >> 3. Use different abstractions to enforce proper initialization order
> >> (like extending mipi_dsi_host_ops): requires existence of transport bus
> >> abstraction (only DSI at the moment(?)).
> >
> > A real bus seems overkill, but we could have drm_bridge operations
> > specific to particular hardware interfaces.
> >
> >> ... other ideas?
> >
> > I don't like it because of the amount of work it would require to switch
> > to such a model, but I'm really starting to think that a variation of
> > the second option would be best, where the sink controls the source
> > instead of having the source controlling the sink. It's the sink that
> > knows about its enabling/disabling sequence, and about how the source
> > needs to be controlled to match it.
>
> I am afraid it depends on the protocol and cross-calls (source->sink,
> sink->source) can be hard to avoid in case of some protocols.
Do you have any particular protocol in mind ?
> >> Another idea, connected to the subject - some protocols require some
> >> negotiations between source and sink bus format, or more steps than
> >> pre_enable, enable ops to establish link. I wonder if encapsulating
> >> drm_bridge in some protocol specific struct wouldn't be a solution, it
> >> can be helpful as well in case of the subject.
> >>
> >> For example:
> >>
> >> struct drm_bridge_edp {
> >>
> >> const struct drm_bridge_edp_funcs *funcs;
> >>
> >> struct drm_bridge base;
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >> };
> >>
> >> Then source could promote bridge pointer to bridge_edp pointer (if
> >> applicable) and perform edp specific stuff. To make it working well
> >> pre-enable order should be as proposed in this patchsets (encoder ->
> >> connector), as the source should initiate negotiations.
> >>
> >> Btw this encapsulation stuff above asks to rename drm_bridge to
> >> drm_sink, otherwise it would be confusing as bridges have two ends.
> >
> > drm_sink would be equally confusing when used for devices that have a
> > sink and a source :-) I'm not against a rename though, if we can find a
> > better name.
>
> But in this case we are interested only in sink part of the bridge (OR
> panel). If source is looking for specific bridge or panel
> (drm_of_find_panel_or_bridge), it is in fact looking for sink.
I'm find using "sink" as part of a function name that would look up a
sink, but the device itself isn't necessarily just a sink, so we need a
more generic name.
> >> [1]: I use term sink as short equivalent for 'bridges AND panels'
> >> (another issue in DRMs).
> >>
> >> [2]: https://www.mouser.com/datasheet/2/286/THC63LVD1024-1396205.pdf
> >>
> >>>> A FURTHER NOTE: Looking closer at commit 4e5763f03e10 ("drm/bridge:
> >>>> ti-sn65dsi86: Wrap panel with panel-bridge") you can see that patch
> >>>> inadvertently changed the order of things. The order used to be
> >>>> correct (panel prepare was at the tail of the bridge enable) but it
> >>>> became backwards. We'll restore the original order with this patch.
> >>>>
> >>>> Fixes: 4e5763f03e10 ("drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: Wrap panel with panel-bridge")
> >>>> Fixes: 05193dc38197 ("drm/bridge: Make the bridge chain a double-linked list")
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>> To make the patch complete the descriptions in drm_bridge_funcs
> >>> need to be updated to reflect the new reality.
> >>>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>
> >>>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c | 28 ++++++++++++++--------------
> >>>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c
> >>>> index c96847fc0ebc..98808af59afd 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c
> >>>> @@ -583,18 +583,14 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_bridge_chain_mode_set);
> >>>> void drm_bridge_chain_pre_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge)
> >>> If you, or someone else, could r-b or ack the pending patches to remove
> >>> this function, this part of the patch would no longer be needed.
> >>>
> >>>> {
> >>>> struct drm_encoder *encoder;
> >>>> - struct drm_bridge *iter;
> >>>>
> >>>> if (!bridge)
> >>>> return;
> >>>>
> >>>> encoder = bridge->encoder;
> >>>> - list_for_each_entry_reverse(iter, &encoder->bridge_chain, chain_node) {
> >>>> - if (iter->funcs->pre_enable)
> >>>> - iter->funcs->pre_enable(iter);
> >>>> -
> >>>> - if (iter == bridge)
> >>>> - break;
> >>>> + list_for_each_entry_from(bridge, &encoder->bridge_chain, chain_node) {
> >>>> + if (bridge->funcs->pre_enable)
> >>>> + bridge->funcs->pre_enable(bridge);
> >>>> }
> >>>> }
> >>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_bridge_chain_pre_enable);
> >>>> @@ -684,26 +680,30 @@ void drm_atomic_bridge_chain_post_disable(struct drm_bridge *bridge,
> >>>> struct drm_atomic_state *old_state)
> >>>> {
> >>>> struct drm_encoder *encoder;
> >>>> + struct drm_bridge *iter;
> >>> s/iter/bridge/ would make the patch simpler
> >>> And then the bridge argument could be last_bridge or something.
> >>> This would IMO increase readability of the code and make the patch smaller.
> >>>>
> >>>> if (!bridge)
> >>>> return;
> >>>>
> >>>> encoder = bridge->encoder;
> >>>> - list_for_each_entry_from(bridge, &encoder->bridge_chain, chain_node) {
> >>>> - if (bridge->funcs->atomic_post_disable) {
> >>>> + list_for_each_entry_reverse(iter, &encoder->bridge_chain, chain_node) {
> >>>> + if (iter->funcs->atomic_post_disable) {
> >>>> struct drm_bridge_state *old_bridge_state;
> >>>>
> >>>> old_bridge_state =
> >>>> drm_atomic_get_old_bridge_state(old_state,
> >>>> - bridge);
> >>>> + iter);
> >>>> if (WARN_ON(!old_bridge_state))
> >>>> return;
> >>>>
> >>>> - bridge->funcs->atomic_post_disable(bridge,
> >>>> - old_bridge_state);
> >>>> - } else if (bridge->funcs->post_disable) {
> >>>> - bridge->funcs->post_disable(bridge);
> >>>> + iter->funcs->atomic_post_disable(iter,
> >>>> + old_bridge_state);
> >>>> + } else if (iter->funcs->post_disable) {
> >>>> + iter->funcs->post_disable(iter);
> >>>> }
> >>>> +
> >>>> + if (iter == bridge)
> >>>> + break;
> >>> I cannot see why this is needed, we are at the end of the list here
> >>> anyway.
> >>>
> >>>> }
> >>>> }
> >>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_atomic_bridge_chain_post_disable);
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
