On 16/04/2022 03:09, Doug Anderson wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 3:45 PM Dmitry Baryshkov
<dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 at 00:13, Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 5:47 PM Dmitry Baryshkov
<dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 09/04/2022 05:36, Douglas Anderson wrote:
As talked about in the kerneldoc for "struct dp_aux_ep_client" in this
patch and also in the past in commit a1e3667a9835 ("drm/bridge:
ti-sn65dsi86: Promote the AUX channel to its own sub-dev"), to use the
DP AUX bus properly we really need two "struct device"s. One "struct
device" is in charge of providing the DP AUX bus and the other is
where we'll try to get a reference to the newly probed endpoint
devices.
In ti-sn65dsi86 this wasn't too difficult to accomplish. That driver
is already broken up into several "struct devices" anyway because it
also provides a PWM and some GPIOs. Adding one more wasn't that
difficult / ugly.
When I tried to do the same solution in parade-ps8640, it felt like I
was copying too much boilerplate code. I made the realization that I
didn't _really_ need a separate "driver" for each person that wanted
to do the same thing. By putting all the "driver" related code in a
common place then we could save a bit of hassle. This change
effectively adds a new "ep_client" driver that can be used by
anyone. The devices instantiated by this driver will just call through
to the probe/remove/shutdown calls provided.
At the moment, the "ep_client" driver is backed by the Linux auxiliary
bus (unfortunate naming--this has nothing to do with DP AUX). I didn't
want to expose this to clients, though, so as far as clients are
concerned they get a vanilla "struct device".
I have been thinking about your approach for quite some time. I think
that enforcing a use of auxilliary device is an overkill. What do we
really need is the the set callbacks in the bus struct or a notifier. We
have to notify the aux_bus controller side that the client has been
probed successfully or that the client is going to be removed.
It seems like these new callbacks would be nearly the same as the
probe/remove callbacks in my proposal except:
* They rely on there being exactly 1 AUX device, or we make it a rule
that we wait for all AUX devices to probe (?)
Is the backlight a separate device on an AUX bus? Judging from
drm_panel_dp_aux_backlight(), it isn't. I assumed that aux bus is just
a point-to-point bus, so there is always a single client.
Define "device". ;-)
"a device on the AUX bus" = the device, which lists dp_aux_bus_type as
dev->bus_type.
It's a seperate "struct device" from a Linux point of view since it's
a backlight class device. Certainly it's highly correlated to the
display, but one can conceptually think of them as different devices,
sorta. ;-)
I actually dug a tiny bit more into the whole "touchscreen over aux".
I guess DP 1.2 has a standard of "USB over DP AUX". No idea how that
would be modeled, of course.
Ugh. Do you have any details of the standard itself? Like how does it
looks like from the host point of view. And if the AUX is required to be
powered for this USB bus to work?
In other words: if we were to model it at this moment, would it be the
child of the panel device (like backlight) or a separate device sitting
on the same AUX bus?
I guess the summary is that I'm OK w/ changing it to assume one device
for now, but I'm still not sure it's compelling to move to normal
callbacks. The API for callbacks is pretty much the same as the one I
proposed and IMO leaving it the way it is (with an extra struct
device) doesn't really add much complexity and has a few (small) nice
benefits.
I think Stephen didn't like too many similarities between
dp_aux_ep_client and dp_aux_ep_device. And I'd second him here.
* We need to come up with a system for detecting when everything
probes or is going to be removed, though that's probably not too hard.
I guess the DP AUX bus could just replace the panel's probe function
with its own and essentially "tail patch" it. I guess it could "head
patch" the remove call? ...or is there some better way you were
thinking of knowing when all our children probed?
* The callback on the aux bus controller side would not be able to
DEFER. In other words trying to acquire a reference to the panel can
always be the last thing we do so we know there can be no reasons to
defer after. This should be doable, but at least in the ps8640 case it
will require changing the code a bit. I notice that today it actually
tries to get the panel side _before_ it gets the MIPI side and it
potentially can return -EPROBE_DEFER if it can't find the MIPI side. I
guess I have a niggling feeling that we'll find some reason in the
future that we can't be last, but we can probably ignore that. ;-)
I can switch this all to normal callbacks if that's what everyone
wants, but it doesn't feel significantly cleaner to me and does seem
to have some (small) downsides.
And this
approach would make driver's life easier, since e.g. the bus code can
pm_get the EP device before calling callbacks/notifiers and
pm_put_autosuspend it afterwards.
Not sure about doing the pm calls on behalf of the EP device. What's
the goal there?
I think any driver can pm_runtime_get another device. The goal is to
let the 'post_probe' callback to power up the panel, read the EDID,
etc.
Right. I was hoping to keep this as a separate discussion since I
think it's largely unrelated to the probe ordering issue, but we can
talk about it here if you want.
As for me they are pretty much tired one to another. As reading EDID
(even if it is just to read the panel ID) is one of the main issue with
panel probe path. I just don't want to end up in a situation when we
refactor aux_bus probe to fix the ordering/race issue and then we have
to refactor it again for reading EDID.
There are a lot of open questions here and it's definitely hard to
wrap your head around all of it. Maybe I'll just spam some thoughts
and see if they all make sense together...
Thank you for the lengthy explanation. And I should be your pardon for
partially ignoring DP/ dp bridges patches earlier.
1. At the moment, there's no guarantee that a DP AUX Endpoint (AKA
panel) will use pm_runtime() to power itself up enough to do an AUX
transfer. At the moment the two eDP panels drivers I'm aware of use
pm_runtime, but that's actually a fairly new behavior. I guess we'd
have to codify it as "required" if we were going to rely on it.
* document it as a "required"
2. In general, panels have powered themselves enough to read the EDID
in their prepare() stage, which is equivalent to the bridge's
pre_enable(). During some of my early patches to try to support EDID
reading in ti-sn65dsi86 I actually relied upon it. It was like that in
v3 [1]. Personally I see this as the "official" interface to power on
the panel from the DP controller. As such I'm not sure we need to add
pm_runtime() as an equivalent option.
3. In the cover letter of v4 of my ti-sn65dsi86 EDID patch series I
talked about why I switched to having EDID reading driven by the panel
instead of powering on the panel (via pre_enable) and reading the EDID
in the controller. One reason talked about there is that the "generic"
eDP panel driver actually needs the EDID, or at least enough of it to
get the panel ID, so that it can adjust its power sequence timings. If
the EDID reading is completely handled by the DP driver and the panel
can't do it then we'd need to figure out how to communicate it back.
I think with the current drm_bridge_connector-based code this should be
handled properly. Anyway, it should be the panel, who reads the EDID,
not the DP core. Actually just a random idea that just came to my mind.
Maybe (!) we should break ties between msm dp core and the whole
EDID/HPD/dp_panel story. In other words, split the whole DP EDID reading
to the separate drm_bridge. Maybe I'm overengineering it here.
4. In general, panels can be pretty persnickety about their power
sequencing. As far as I've been able to tell, the official spec
provides two things you can do:
4a) You can power the panel up enough to do AUX transfers and then
power it back off.
4b) You can power the panel up enough to do AUX transfers, then finish
powering it all the way up (turn on screen, backlight, etc). When you
turn the screen off, if you follow the spec strictly, you're also
_required_ to fully power the panel off. In other words, remove _all_
power from the display including any power that would be needed to do
AUX transfers.
Ugh. It's a pity that we can not leave AUX enabled forever, while doing
all kinds of turning the screen off and on again.
Now the generic eDP panel code doesn't currently follow the
"strict"ness of the spec and I'm not actually sure if that's how the
spec is intended to be interpreted anyway. There are two timing
diagrams, though. One for "aux transfer only" and the other for
"normal system operation". In the "normal system operation" the
diagram doesn't allow for the backlight to ever go off and on again.
Now, despite the fact that the generic eDP panel code doesn't follow
the "strict"ness I just described, the _other_ DP panel I worked on
recently (samsung-atna33xc20) does. In testing we found that this
panel would sometimes (like 1 in 20 times?) crash if you ever stopped
outputting data to the display and then started again. You absolutely
needed to fully power cycle the display each time. I tried to document
this to the best of my ability in atana33xc20_unprepare(). There's
also a WARN_ON() in atana33xc20_enable() trying to detect if someone
is doing something the panel driver doesn't expect. I've also been
trying to keep my eyes out to see if we need to do the same thing in
generic eDP panel code, either for everyone or via some type of
per-panel quirk. There's definitely a good reason to avoid the extra
cycling if possible since powering panels off and on again often
requires hundreds of milliseconds of delay in order to meet timing
diagrams. ...and we do this if we ever change panel "modes".
Point noted.
...OK, so why does this all matter? I guess my point here is I worry a
little bit about saying that the DP controller code can willy nilly
request the panel to be powered whenever it wants. If the DP
controller was trying to hold the panel powered and then we _needed_
to power the panel off then that would be bad. It doesn't mean we
can't be careful about it, of course...
Said another way, in my mental model these three sequences are allowed:
s1) prepare, unprepare
s2) prepare, enable, disable, unprepare
s3) prepare, enable, disable, unprepare, prepare, enable, disable, unprepare
...and this sequence is _not_ allowed:
s4) prepare, enable, disable, enable, disable, unprepare
A strange random question (for which there is probably an existing
obvious answer somwewhere, 4 a.m. here).
Is there any reason why can't we drop prepare/unprepare for the eDP
panels and use the following sequence;
- get_modes() = perform AUX-only transfer the first time we hit the
function to read the EDID. return cached copy afterwards.
- a sequence of enable()/disable() calls doing a full powerup/powerdown?
...and, in my mind, it's up to the panel driver to know whether in
sequence s3) it has to _force_ power off between the unprepare and a
prepare.
If pm_runtime() officially replaces prepare/unprepare then it's less
obvious (in my mind) that we have to coordinate with enable().
I see
5. In general I've been asserting that it should be up to the panel to
power things on and drive all AUX transactions. ...but clearly my
model isn't reality. We certainly do AUX transactions from the DP
driver because the DP driver needs to know things about the connected
device, like the number of lanes it has, the version of eDP it
supports, and the available bit rates to name a few. Those things all
work today by relying on the fact that pre-enable powers the panel on.
It's pretty easy to say that reading the EDID (and I guess AUX
backlight) is the odd one out. So right now I guess my model is:
5a) If the panel code wants to access the AUX bus it can do so by
powering itself on and then just doing an AUX transaction and assuming
that the provider of the AUX bus can power itself on as needed.
5b) If the DP code wants to access the AUX bus it should make sure
that the next bridge's pre_enable() has been called. It can then
assume that the device is powered on until the next bridge's
post_disable() has been called.
So I guess tl;dr: I'm not really a huge fan of the DP driver powering
the panel on by doing a pm_runtime_get() on it. I'd prefer to keep
with the interface that we have to pre_enable() the panel to turn it
on.
Again, thank for the explanation. Your concerns make more sense now.
As much as I hate writing docs, maybe we should put at least basic notes
(regarding panel requirements) somewhere to the DP/DP AUX documentation?
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210402152701.v3.8.Ied721dc895156046ac523baa55a71da241cd09c7@changeid/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210416223950.3586967-1-dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx/
BTW: as I'm slowly diving into DP vs eDP differences. Do we need to
write the EDID checksum like we do for DP?
Write the EDID checksum? I don't know what that means. You mean
dp_panel_get_edid_checksum()? I'm not 100% sure, a quick glance seems
to make me feel it has to do with DP compliance testing? I can dig
more if need be. The generic EDID reading code already calculates the
checksum, so unless you're doing some funny business you shouldn't
need to check it again...
I was thinking about dp_link_send_edid_checksum() /
drm_dp_send_real_edid_checksum().
Do you have any good summary for eDP vs DP differences?
I don't. :( Mostly stuff here is me trying to grok bits out of what
existing drivers were doing and trying to cross reference it with the
eDP spec that I have (which I don't believe I can share,
unfortunately).
I'll check if I can get DP and eDP specs on my own.
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
