On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 11:29:59AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 3/8/22 11:07, Jagan Teki wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 3:19 PM Marek Vasut <marex@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 3/8/22 09:03, Jagan Teki wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > > @@ -314,7 +321,9 @@ static const struct drm_bridge_funcs chipone_bridge_funcs = {
> > > > > static int chipone_parse_dt(struct chipone *icn)
> > > > > {
> > > > > struct device *dev = icn->dev;
> > > > > + struct device_node *endpoint;
> > > > > struct drm_panel *panel;
> > > > > + int dsi_lanes;
> > > > > int ret;
> > > > >
> > > > > icn->vdd1 = devm_regulator_get_optional(dev, "vdd1");
> > > > > @@ -350,15 +359,42 @@ static int chipone_parse_dt(struct chipone *icn)
> > > > > return PTR_ERR(icn->enable_gpio);
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > + endpoint = of_graph_get_endpoint_by_regs(dev->of_node, 0, 0);
> > > > > + dsi_lanes = of_property_count_u32_elems(endpoint, "data-lanes");
> > > > > + icn->host_node = of_graph_get_remote_port_parent(endpoint);
> > > > > + of_node_put(endpoint);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (!icn->host_node)
> > > > > + return -ENODEV;
> > > >
> > > > The non-ports-based OF graph returns a -19 example on the Allwinner
> > > > Display pipeline in R16 [1].
> > > >
> > > > We need to have a helper to return host_node for non-ports as I have
> > > > done it for drm_of_find_bridge.
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://patchwork.amarulasolutions.com/patch/1805/
> > >
> > > The link points to a patch marked "DO NOT MERGE", maybe that patch is
> > > missing the DSI host port@0 OF graph link ? Both port@0 and port@1 are
> > > required, see:
> > >
> > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/chipone,icn6211.yaml#n53
> > >
> > > What is "non-ports-based OF graph" ?
> > >
> > > I don't see drm_of_find_bridge() in linux-next , what is that ?
> >
> > port@0 is optional as some of the DSI host OF-graph represent the
> > bridge or panel as child nodes instead of ports. (i think dt-binding
> > has to fix it to make port@0 optional)
>
> The current upstream DT binding document says:
>
> required:
> - port@0
> - port@1
>
> So port@0 is mandatory.
In the binding, sure, but fundamentally the DT excerpt Jagan provided is
correct. If the bridge supports DCS, there's no reason to use the OF
graph in the first place: the bridge node will be a child node of the
MIPI-DSI controller (and there's no obligation to use the OF-graph for a
MIPI-DSI controller).
I believe port@0 should be made optional (or downright removed if
MIPI-DCS in the only control bus).
Maxime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
