Hi Jagan, On 13.09.2022 19:29, Jagan Teki wrote: > On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 3:34 PM Marek Szyprowski > <m.szyprowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 06.09.2022 21:07, Jagan Teki wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 4:54 PM Marek Szyprowski >>> <m.szyprowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On 02.09.2022 12:47, Marek Szyprowski wrote: >>>>> On 29.08.2022 20:40, Jagan Teki wrote: >>>>>> Samsung MIPI DSIM controller is common DSI IP that can be used in >>>>>> various >>>>>> SoCs like Exynos, i.MX8M Mini/Nano. >>>>>> >>>>>> In order to access this DSI controller between various platform SoCs, >>>>>> the ideal way to incorporate this in the drm stack is via the drm bridge >>>>>> driver. >>>>>> >>>>>> This patch is trying to differentiate platform-specific and bridge >>>>>> driver >>>>>> code and keep maintaining the exynos_drm_dsi.c code as platform-specific >>>>>> glue code and samsung-dsim.c as a common bridge driver code. >>>>>> >>>>>> - Exynos specific glue code is exynos specific te_irq, host_attach, and >>>>>> detach code along with conventional component_ops. >>>>>> >>>>>> - Samsung DSIM is a bridge driver which is common across all >>>>>> platforms and >>>>>> the respective platform-specific glue will initialize at the end >>>>>> of the >>>>>> probe. The platform-specific operations and other glue calls will >>>>>> invoke >>>>>> on associate code areas. >>>>>> >>>>>> v4: >>>>>> * include Inki Dae in MAINTAINERS >>>>>> * remove dsi_driver probe in exynos_drm_drv to support multi-arch build >>>>> This breaks Exynos DRM completely as the Exynos DRM driver is not able >>>>> to wait until the DSI driver is probed and registered as component. >>>>> >>>>> I will show how to rework this the way it is done in >>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp.c and >>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c soon... >>>> I've finally had some time to implement such approach, see >>>> https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=c5d024d9-a4ab8e4e-c5d1af96-74fe4860001d-625a8324a9797375&q=1&e=489b94d4-84fb-408e-b679-a8d27acf2930&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fmszyprow%2Flinux%2Ftree%2Fv6.0-dsi-v4-reworked >>>> >>>> If you want me to send the patches against your v4 patchset, let me >>>> know, but imho my changes are much more readable after squashing to the >>>> original patches. >>>> >>>> Now the driver is fully multi-arch safe and ready for further >>>> extensions. I've removed the weak functions, reworked the way the >>>> plat_data is used (dropped the patch related to it) and restored >>>> exynos-dsi driver as a part of the Exynos DRM drivers/subsystem. Feel >>>> free to resend the above as v5 after testing on your hardware. At least >>>> it properly works now on all Exynos boards I have, both compiled into >>>> the kernel or as modules. >>> Thanks. I've seen the repo added on top of Dave patches - does it mean >>> these depends on Dave changes as well? >> Yes and no. My rework doesn't change anything with this dependency. It >> comes from my patch "drm: exynos: dsi: Restore proper bridge chain >> order" already included in your series (patch #1). Without it exynos-dsi >> driver hacks the list of bridges to ensure the order of pre_enable calls >> needed for proper operation. This works somehow with DSI panels on my >> test systems, but it has been reported that it doesn't work with a bit >> more complex display pipelines. Only that patch depends on the Dave's >> patches. If you remove it, you would need to adjust the code in the >> exynos_drm_dsi.c and samsung-dsim.c respectively. imho it would be >> better to keep it and merge Dave's patches together with dsi changes, as >> they are the first real client of it. > I think the Dave patches especially "drm/bridge: Introduce > pre_enable_upstream_first to alter bridge init order" seems not 100% > relevant to this series as they affect bridge chain call flow > globally. Having a separate series for that makes sense to me. I'm > sending v5 by excluding those parts. If so then drop the "drm: exynos: dsi: Restore proper bridge chain order" patch and adjust code respectively in samsung-dsim.c. Without the Dave's patches, that one doesn't make sense. Best regards -- Marek Szyprowski, PhD Samsung R&D Institute Poland
