On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 02:54:01PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 02:41:44PM +0200, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
> > On Tue 26 Apr 22, 14:33, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 09:54:36AM +0200, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
> > > > On Thu 21 Apr 22, 10:59, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
> > > > > On Thu 21 Apr 22, 10:23, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 01:15:54PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:
> > > > > > > + Linus
> > > > > > > + Marek
> > > > > > > + Laurent
> > > > > > > + Robert
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 4:40 AM Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Commit '80253168dbfd ("drm: of: Lookup if child node has panel or
> > > > > > > > bridge")' attempted to simplify the case of expressing a simple panel
> > > > > > > > under a DSI controller, by assuming that the first non-graph child node
> > > > > > > > was a panel or bridge.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Unfortunately for non-trivial cases the first child node might not be a
> > > > > > > > panel or bridge. Examples of this can be a aux-bus in the case of
> > > > > > > > DisplayPort, or an opp-table represented before the panel node.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In these cases the reverted commit prevents the caller from ever finding
> > > > > > > > a reference to the panel.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This reverts commit '80253168dbfd ("drm: of: Lookup if child node has
> > > > > > > > panel or bridge")', in favor of using an explicit graph reference to the
> > > > > > > > panel in the trivial case as well.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This eventually breaks many child-based devm_drm_of_get_bridge
> > > > > > > switched drivers. Do you have any suggestions on how to proceed to
> > > > > > > succeed in those use cases as well?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I guess we could create a new helper for those, like
> > > > > > devm_drm_of_get_bridge_with_panel, or something.
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh wow I feel stupid for not thinking about that.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah I agree that it seems like the best option.
> > > >
> > > > Should I prepare a patch with such a new helper?
> > > >
> > > > The idea would be to keep drm_of_find_panel_or_bridge only for the of graph
> > > > case and add one for the child node case, maybe:
> > > > drm_of_find_child_panel_or_bridge.
> > > >
> > > > I really don't have a clear idea of which driver would need to be switched
> > > > over though. Could someone (Jagan?) let me know where it would be needed?
> > > >
> > > > Are there cases where we could both expect of graph and child node?
> > > > (i.e. does the new helper also need to try via of graph?)
> > >
> > > I still think we should use OF graph uncondtionally, even in the DSI
> > > case. We need to ensure backward-compatibility, but I'd like new
> > > bindings (and thus new drivers) to always use OF graph.
> >
> > I just went over the thread on "drm: of: Improve error handling in bridge/panel
> > detection" again and I'm no longer sure there's actually still an issue that
> > stands, with the fix that allows returning -ENODEV when possible.
> >
> > The remaining issue that was brought up was with a connector node, but it should
> > be up to the driver to detect that and avoid calling drm_of_find_panel_or_bridge
> > in such situations.
> >
> > So with that in mind it feels like the child node approach can be viable
> > (and integrated in the same helper).
> >
> > We might still want to favor an explicit OF graph approach, but note that
> > dsi-controller.yaml also specifies extra properties that are specific to
> > MIPI DSI and I'm not sure there are equivalent definitions for the OF graph
> > approach.
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> I don't think Laurent's point was to move the child node away from its
> DSI controller, that part doesn't make much sense. The panel or bridge
> is still accessed through the DSI bus, so it very much belongs there.
>
> What he meant I think was that we mandate the OF graph for all panels,
> so for panels/bridges controlled through DCS, you would still list the
> output through the graph.
Also, we're already in a bit of a mess right now. I don't think rushing
that kind of patches in a (late) rc is making much sense, but as I said,
if you want to start working on this, then I'll take a revert for the
next rc, and then we can work calmly on this.
Maxime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
