Hi Marek,
Small correction in the previous comment.
On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 2:05 AM Jagan Teki <jagan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Marek,
>
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 1:32 AM Marek Vasut <marex@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 3/11/22 17:29, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 11:36:58AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > >> On 3/10/22 15:18, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > >>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 01:47:13PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > >>>> On 3/10/22 11:53, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > >>>>> On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 10:41:05PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 3/8/22 17:21, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 03:47:22PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> On 3/8/22 14:49, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 02:27:40PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/22 13:51, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> 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).
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> That's out of scope of this series anyway, so Jagan can implement patches
> > >>>>>>>>>> for that mode if needed.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Not really? You can't count on the port@0 being there generally
> > >>>>>>>>> speaking, so you can't count on data-lanes being there either, which
> > >>>>>>>>> exactly what you're doing in this patch.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I can because the upstream DT bindings currently say port@0 must be present,
> > >>>>>>>> see above. If that requirement should be relaxed, sure, but that's a
> > >>>>>>>> separate series.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> And another upstream DT bindings say that you don't need them at all.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Which "another upstream DT bindings" do you refer to ?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/mipi-dsi-bus.txt
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Yes, there's a conflict. Yes, it's unfortunate. But the generic DSI
> > >>>>>>> binding is far more relevant than a single bridge driver.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> That seems to be the wrong way around, how can generic subsystem-wide
> > >>>>>> binding take precedence over specific driver binding ?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> This is the binding of the bus. You're part of that bus. You're a child
> > >>>>> node of that bus, but nothing ever mandates that your parent node uses
> > >>>>> the same convention. And some don't. And since your bridge can be
> > >>>>> connected to pretty much any DSI controller, you have to use the lowest
> > >>>>> common denominator, not make up some new constraints that not all
> > >>>>> controller will be able to comply with.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It seems to me the ICN6211 DT bindings currently further constraint the
> > >>>> generic DSI bus bindings, and that seems OK to me.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Let me reiterate this again -- if someone wants to relax the requirements
> > >>>> currently imposed by the ICN6211 DT bindings, fine, but that can be done in
> > >>>> a separate patchset AND that needs DT bindings update. Furthermore, there
> > >>>> are no users of this ICN6211 bridge in upstream DTs, so there is currently
> > >>>> no bridge which would operate without OF graph using this driver.
> > >>>
> > >>> And let me reiterate this again: something that used to work for a user
> > >>> doesn't anymore when your series is applied. This is a textbook
> > >>> regression. I suggested a way forward, that you don't like for some
> > >>> reason, fine. But pushing through a regression is just not acceptable.
> > >>
> > >> How can this be a regression if this mode of operation could not have ever
> > >> been supported with valid upstream DT bindings in the first place ?
> > >>
> > >> Should we now require that kernel drivers somehow magically support all
> > >> kinds of random broken DT bindings in addition to ones which pass YAML DT
> > >> validation ?
> > >
> > > The thing is, as I told you multiple times already, it was broken from
> > > the bridge standpoint, but not from the controller's. If it had been
> > > correct for the bridge, it wouldn't have been for the controller. So,
> > > same story.
> > >
> > > The only difference is that it wouldn't affect you, but I don't see how
> > > it's relevant.
> >
> > I'm sorry, I do not understand this answer.
> >
> > >>>>>>> So figuring it out is very much a prerequisite to that series,
> > >>>>>>> especially since those patches effectively make the OF-graph mandatory
> > >>>>>>> in some situations, while it was purely aesthetics before.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The OF-graph is mandatory per the DT bindings of this driver. If you
> > >>>>>> implement invalid DT which does not contain port@0, it will fail DT
> > >>>>>> validation.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> If this requirement should be relaxed, sure, it can and I don't think it
> > >>>>>> would be hard to do, but I don't see why that should be part of this series,
> > >>>>>> which follows the upstream DT binding document for this driver.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> If I cannot trust the driver DT bindings to indicate what is and is not
> > >>>>>> mandatory, what other document can I trust then ...
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Oh, come on. Doing that, you also require OF-Graph support for the DSI
> > >>>>> controller you attach to, and you can't require that. This is very
> > >>>>> different from just requiring a property that doesn't have any impact on
> > >>>>> any other device, and you know that very well.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Currently the ICN6211 DT bindings DO require that kind of bridge.
> > >>>
> > >>> And while this wasn't enforced before, you make it a hard requirement
> > >>> with this series. This is what changed, and what caused this whole
> > >>> discussion.
> > >>
> > >> The current DT bindings already make it a hard requirement, so no, nothing
> > >> changed here.
> > >>
> > >> Unless what you are trying to ask for is support for broken DT bindings
> > >> which do not pass YAML DT validation by this driver, but that is very
> > >> dangerous, because then the question is, how far should we support such
> > >> broken bindings. What kind of broken is still OK and what kind of broken is
> > >> no longer OK ?
> > >
> > > If it ever worked in a mainline release, it must always work. See:
> > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/devicetree/bindings/ABI.html
> >
> > > As far as I'm concerned, it's the sole criteria. So to answer your
> > > question, if it was broken but worked at some point, yes, we need to
> > > keep supporting it. If it never worked, no, we don't.
> >
> > There are no users of this driver in any mainline release.
> >
> > DT is ABI, and ICN6211 DT bindings says port@0 is mandatory. If this
> > driver worked with some broken downstream DT without port@0, then that
> > downstream depended on undefined behavior which I cannot fathom how it
> > can be considered part of kernel ABI. That downstream should fix its DT
> > instead.
>
> Yes, agreed that ICN6211 DT bindings say port@0 is mandatory. However,
> marking port@0 (after fixing DT binding) with non-I2C-ICN6211 is still
s/port@0/port@0 as optional/
