On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Laurent Pinchart
<laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We've hosted a CDF meeting at the FOSDEM on Sunday morning. Here's a summary
> of the discussions.
>
> I would like to start with a big thank to UrLab, the ULB university hacker
> space, for providing us with a meeting room.
>
> The meeting would of course not have been successful without the wide range of
> participants, so I also want to thank all the people who woke up on Sunday
> morning to attend the meeting :-)
>
> (The CC list is pretty long, please let me know - by private e-mail in order
> not to spam the list - if you would like not to receive future CDF-related e-
> mails directly)
>
> 0. Abbreviations
> ----------------
>
> DBI - Display Bus Interface, a parallel video control and data bus that
> transmits data using parallel data, read/write, chip select and address
> signals, similarly to 8051-style microcontroller parallel busses. This is a
> mixed video control and data bus.
>
> DPI - Display Pixel Interface, a parallel video data bus that transmits data
> using parallel data, h/v sync and clock signals. This is a video data bus
> only.
>
> DSI - Display Serial Interface, a serial video control and data bus that
> transmits data using one or more differential serial lines. This is a mixed
> video control and data bus.
>
> DT - Device Tree, a representation of a hardware system as a tree of physical
> devices with associated properties.
>
> SFI - Simple Firmware Interface, a lightweight method for firmware to export
> static tables to the operating system. Those tables can contain display device
> topology information.
>
> VBT - Video BIOS Table, a block of data residing in the video BIOS that can
> contain display device topology information.
>
> 1. Goals
> --------
>
> The meeting started with a brief discussion about the CDF goals.
>
> Tomi Valkeinin and Tomasz Figa have sent RFC patches to show their views of
> what CDF could/should be. Many others have provided very valuable feedback.
> Given the early development stage propositions were sometimes contradictory,
> and focused on different areas of interest. We have thus started the meeting
> with a discussion about what CDF should try to achieve, and what it shouldn't.
>
> CDF has two main purposes. The original goal was to support display panels in
> a platform- and subsystem-independent way. While mostly useful for embedded
> systems, the emergence of platforms such as Intel Medfield and ARM-based PCs
> that blends the embedded and PC worlds makes panel support useful for the PC
> world as well.
>
> The second purpose is to provide a cross-subsystem interface to support video
> encoders. The idea originally came from a generalisation of the original RFC
> that supported panels only. While encoder support is considered as lower
> priority than display panel support by developers focussed on display
> controller driver (Intel, Renesas, ST Ericsson, TI), companies that produce
> video encoders (Analog Devices, and likely others) don't share that point of
> view and would like to provide a single encoder driver that can be used in
> both KMS and V4L2 drivers.
>
> Both display panels and encoders are thus the target of a lot of attention,
> depending on the audience. As long as none of them is forgotten in CDF, the
> overall agreement was that focussing on panels first is acceptable. Care shall
> be taken in that case to avoid any architecture that would make encoders
> support difficult or impossible.
>
> 2. Subsystems
> -------------
>
> Display panels are used in conjunction with FBDEV and KMS drivers. There was
> to the audience knowledge no V4L2 driver that needs to explicitly handle
> display panels. Even though at least one V4L2 output drivers (omap_vout) can
> output video to a display panel, it does so in conjunction with the KMS and/or
> FBDEV APIs that handle panel configuration. Panels are thus not exposed to
> V4L2 drivers.
>
> Encoders, on the other hand, are widely used in the V4L2 subsystem. Many V4L2
> devices output video in either analog (Composite, S-Video, VGA) or digital
> (DVI, HDMI) way.
>
> Display panel drivers don't need to be shared with the V4L2 subsystem.
> Furthermore, as the general opinion during the meeting was that the FBDEV
> subsystem should be considered as legacy and deprecate in the future,
> restricting panel support to KMS hasn't been considered by anyone as an issue.
> KMS will thus be the main target of display panel support in CDF, and FBDEV
> will be supported if that doesn't bring any drawback from an architecture
> point of view.
>
> Encoder drivers need to be shared with the V4L2 subsystem. Similarly to panel
> drivers, excluding FBDEV support from CDF isn't considered as an issue.
>
> 3. KMS Extensions
> -----------------
>
> The usefulness of V4L2 for output devices was questioned, and the possibility
> of using KMS for complex video devices usually associated with V4L2 was
> raised. The TI DaVinci 8xxx family is an example of chips that could benefit
> from KMS support.
>
> The KMS API is lacking support for deep-pipelining ("framebuffers" that are
> sourced from a data stream instead of a memory buffer) today. Extending the
> KMS API with deep-pipelining support was considered as a sensible goal that
> would mostly require the creation of a new KMS source object. Exposing the
> topology of the whole device would then be handled by the Media Controller
> API.
>
> Given that no evidence of this KMS extension being ready in a reasonable time
> frame exists, sharing encoder drivers with the V4L2 subsystem hasn't been
> seriously questioned.
>
> 4. Discovery and Initialization
> -------------------------------
>
> As CDF will split support for complete display devices across different
> drivers, the question of physical devices discovery and initialization caused
> concern among the audience.
>
> Topology and connectivity information can come from a wide variety of sources.
> Embedded platforms typically provide that information in platform data
> supplied by board code or through the device tree. PC platforms usually store
> the information in the firmware exposed through ACPI, SFI, VBT or other
> interfaces. Pluggable devices (PCI being the most common case) can also store
> the information on an on-board non-volatile memory or hardcode it in drivers.
>
> When using the device tree display entity information are bundled with the
> display entity device DT node. The associated driver shall thus extract itself
> information from the DT node. In all other cases the display entity driver
> shall not parse data from the information source directly, but shall instead
> received a platform data structure filled with data parsed by the display
> controller driver. In the most complex case a machine driver, similar to ASoC
> machine drivers, might be needed, in which case platform data could be
> provided by that machine driver.
>
> Display entity drivers are encouraged to internally fill a platform data
> structure from their DT node to reuse the same code path for both platform
> data- and DT-based initialization.
>
> 5. Bus Model
> ------------
>
> Display panels are connected to a video bus that transmits video data and
> optionally to a control bus. Those two busses can be separate physical
> interfaces or combined into a single physical interface.
>
> The Linux device model represents the system as a tree of devices (not to be
> confused by the device tree, abreviated as DT). The tree is organized around
> control busses, with every device being a child of its control bus master. For
> instance an I2C device will be a child of its I2C controller device, which can
> itself be a child of its parent PCI device.
>
> Display panels will be represented as Linux devices. They will have a single
> parent from the Linux device model point of view, but will be potentially
> connected to multiple physical busses. CDF thus needs to define what bus to
> select as the Linux parent bus.
>
> In theory any physical bus that the device is attached to can be selected as
> the parent bus. However, selecting a video data bus would depart from the
> traditional Linux device model that uses control busses only. This caused
> concern among several people who argued that not presenting the device to the
> kernel as attached to its control bus would bring issues in embedded system.
> Unlike on PC systems where the control bus master is usually the same physical
> device as the data bus master, embedded systems are made of a potentially
> complex assembly of completely unrelated devices. Not representing an I2C-
> controlled panel as a child of its I2C master in DT was thus frown upon, even
> though no clear agreement was reached on the subject.
>
> Panels can be divided in three categories based on their bus model.
>
> - No control bus
>
> Many panels don't offer any control interface. They are usually referred to as
> 'dumb panels' as they directly display the data received on their video bus
> without any configurable option. Panels in this category often use DPI is
> their video bus, but other options such as DSI (using the DSI video mode only)
> are possible.
>
> Panels with no control bus can be represented in the device model as platform
> devices, or as being attached to their video bus. In the later case we would
> need Linux busses for pure video data interfaces such as DPI or VGA. Nobody
> was particularly enthousiastic about this idea. Dumb panels will thus likely
> be represented as platform devices.
>
> - Separate video and control busses
>
> The typical case is a panel connected to an I2C or SPI bus that receives data
> through a DPI video interface or DSI video mode interface.
>
> Using a mixed control and video bus (such as DSI and DBI) for control only
> with a different bus for video data is possible in theory but very unlikely in
> practice (although the creativity of hardware developers should never be
> underestimated).
>
> Display panels that use a control bus supported by the Linux kernel should
> likely be represented as children of their control bus master. Other options
> are possible as mentioned above but were received without enthousiasm by most
> embedded kernel developers.
>
> When the control bus isn't supported by the kernel, a new bus type can be
> developed, or the panel can be represented as a platform device. The right
> option will likely very depending on the control bus.
>
> - Combined video and control busses
>
> When the two busses are combined in a single physical bus the panel device
> will obviously be represented as a child of that single physical bus.
>
> In such cases the control bus could expose video bus control methods. This
> would remove the need for a video source as proposed by Tomi Valkeinen in his
> CDF model. However, if the bus can be used for video data transfer in
> combination with a different control bus, a video source corresponding to the
> data bus will be needed.
>
> No decision has been taken on whether to use a video source in addition to the
> control bus in the combined busses case. Experimentation will be needed, and
> the right solution might depend on the bus type.
>
> - Multiple control busses
>
> One panel was mentioned as being connected to a DSI bus and an I2C bus. The
> DSI bus is used for both control and video, and the I2C bus for control only.
> configuring the panel requires sending commands through both DSI and I2C. The
> opinion on such panels was a large *sigh* followed by a "this should be
> handled by the device core, let's ask Greg KH".
>
> 6. Miscellaneous
> ----------------
>
> - If the OMAP3 DSS driver is used as a model for the DSI support
> implementation, Daniel Vetter requested the DSI bus lock semaphore to be
> killed as it prevents lockdep from working correctly (reference needed ;-)).
>
> - Do we need to support chaining several encoders ? We can come up with
> several theoretical use cases, some of them probably exist in real hardware,
> but the details are still a bit fuzzy.
So, a part which is completely omitted in this thread is how to handle
suspend/resume ordering. If you have multiple encoders which need to
be turned on/off in a given order at suspend/resume, how do you handle
that given the current scheme where they are just separate platform
drivers in drivers/video?
This problems occurs with drm/exynos in current 3.8 kernels for
example. On that platform, the DP driver and the FIMD driver will
suspend/resume in random order, and therefore fail resuming half the
time. Is there something which could be done in CDF to address that?
Stéphane
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
