On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 at 12:25, Dave Stevenson <dave.stevenson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 at 15:18, Dave Stevenson > <dave.stevenson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi All > > A gentle ping on this series. Any comments on the approach? > Thanks. I realise the merge window has just closed and therefore folks have been busy, but no responses on this after a month? Do I give up and submit a patch to document that DSI is broken and no one cares? Dave > > Changes from v1: > > - New patch to refactor drm_bridge_chain_post_disable and drm_bridge_chain_pre_enable > > to reuse drm_atomic_bridge_chain_post_disable / drm_atomic_bridge_chain_pre_enable > > but with a NULL state. > > - New patch that adds a pre_enable_upstream_first to drm_panel. > > - changed from an OPS flag to a bool "pre_enable_upstream_first" in drm_bridge. > > - Followed Andrzej's suggestion of using continue in the main loop to avoid > > needing 2 additional loops (one forward to find the last bridge wanting > > upstream first, and the second backwards again). > > - Actioned Laurent's review comments on docs patch. > > > > Original cover letter: > > > > Hopefully I've cc'ed all those that have bashed this problem around previously, > > or are otherwise linked to DRM bridges. > > > > There have been numerous discussions around how DSI support is currently broken > > as it doesn't support initialising the PHY to LP-11 and potentially the clock > > lane to HS prior to configuring the DSI peripheral. There is no op where the > > interface is initialised but HS video isn't also being sent. > > Currently you have: > > - peripheral pre_enable (host not initialised yet) > > - host pre_enable > > - encoder enable > > - host enable > > - peripheral enable (video already running) > > > > vc4 and exynos currently implement the DSI host as an encoder, and split the > > bridge_chain. This fails if you want to switch to being a bridge and/or use > > atomic calls as the state of all the elements split off are not added by > > drm_atomic_add_encoder_bridges. > > > > dw-mipi-dsi[1] and now msm[2] use the mode_set hook to initialise the PHY, so > > the bridge/panel pre_enable can send commands. In their post_disable they then > > call the downstream bridge/panel post_disable op manually so that shutdown > > commands can be sent before shutting down the PHY. Nothing handles that fact, > > so the framework then continues down the bridge chain and calls the post_disable > > again, so we get unbalanced panel prepare/unprepare calls being reported [3]. > > > > There have been patches[4] proposing reversing the entire direction of > > pre_enable and post_disable, but that risks driving voltage into devices that > > have yet to be powered up. > > There have been discussions about adding either a pre_pre_enable, or adding a > > DSI host_op to initialise the host[5]. Both require significant reworking to all > > existing drivers in moving initialisation phases. > > We have patches that look like they may well be addressing race conditions in > > starting up a DSI peripheral[6]. > > > > This patch takes a hybrid of the two: an optional reversing of the order for > > specific links within the bridge chain within pre_enable and post_disable done > > within the drm_bridge framework. > > I'm more than happy to move where the flag exists in structures (currently as > > DRM_BRIDGE_OP_UPSTREAM_FIRST in drm_bridge_ops, but it isn't an op), but does > > this solve the problem posed? If not, then can you describe the actual scenario > > it doesn't cover? > > A DSI peripheral can set the flag to get the DSI host initialised first, and > > therefore it has a stable LP-11 state before pre_enable. Likewise the peripheral > > can still send shutdown commands prior to the DSI host being shut down in > > post_disable. It also handles the case where there are multiple devices in the > > chain that all want their upstream bridge enabled first, so should there be a > > DSI mux between host and peripheral, then it can still get the host to the > > correct state. > > > > An example tree is at [7] which is drm-misc-next with these patches and then a > > conversion of vc4_dsi to use the atomic bridge functions (will be upstreamed > > once we're over this hurdle). It is working happily with the Toshiba TC358762 on > > a Raspberry Pi 7" panel. > > The same approach but on our vendor 5.15 tree[8] has also been tested > > successfully on a TI SN65DSI83 and LVDS panel. > > > > Whilst here, I've also documented the expected behaviour of DSI hosts and > > peripherals to aid those who come along after. > > > > Thanks > > Dave > > > > [1] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/synopsys/dw-mipi-dsi.c#L940 > > [2] https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2022-January/337769.html > > [3] https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2021-December/333908.html > > [4] https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2021-October/328476.html > > [5] https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2021-October/325853.html > > [6] https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2022-February/341852.html > > [7] https://github.com/6by9/linux/tree/drm-misc-next-vc4_dsi > > [8] https://github.com/6by9/linux/tree/rpi-5.15.y-sn65dsi83 > > > > Dave Stevenson (4): > > drm/bridge: Remove duplication from drm_bridge and drm_atomic_bridge > > chains > > drm/bridge: Introduce pre_enable_upstream_first to alter bridge init > > order > > drm/panel: Add prepare_upstream_first flag to drm_panel > > drm/bridge: Document the expected behaviour of DSI host controllers > > > > Documentation/gpu/drm-kms-helpers.rst | 7 ++ > > drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/panel.c | 3 + > > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c | 181 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- > > include/drm/drm_bridge.h | 8 ++ > > include/drm/drm_panel.h | 10 ++ > > 5 files changed, 159 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-) > > > > -- > > 2.7.4 > >
