On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 3:17 PM Adam Ford <aford173@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 4:03 AM Jagan Teki <jagan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 23, 2023 at 5:42 PM Adam Ford <aford173@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Lucas Stach <l.stach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Scale the blanking packet sizes to match the ratio between HS clock
> > > and DPI interface clock. The controller seems to do internal scaling
> > > to the number of active lanes, so we don't take those into account.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Lucas Stach <l.stach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Adam Ford <aford173@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/samsung-dsim.c | 18 +++++++++++++++---
> > > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/samsung-dsim.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/samsung-dsim.c
> > > index e0a402a85787..2be3b58624c3 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/samsung-dsim.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/samsung-dsim.c
> > > @@ -874,17 +874,29 @@ static void samsung_dsim_set_display_mode(struct samsung_dsim *dsi)
> > > u32 reg;
> > >
> > > if (dsi->mode_flags & MIPI_DSI_MODE_VIDEO) {
> > > + int byte_clk_khz = dsi->burst_clk_rate / 1000 / 8;
> > > + int hfp = (m->hsync_start - m->hdisplay) * byte_clk_khz / m->clock;
> >
> > I do not quite understand why it depends on burst_clk_rate, would you
> > please explain? does it depends on bpp something like this
> >
> > mipi_dsi_pixel_format_to_bpp(format) / 8
>
> The pixel clock is currently set to the burst clock rate. Dividing
> the clock by 1000 gets the pixel clock in KHz, and dividing by 8
> converts bits to bytes.
> Later in the series, I change the clock from the burst clock to the
> cached value returned from samsung_dsim_set_pll.
Okay.
>
> >
> > > + int hbp = (m->htotal - m->hsync_end) * byte_clk_khz / m->clock;
> > > + int hsa = (m->hsync_end - m->hsync_start) * byte_clk_khz / m->clock;
> > > +
> > > + /* remove packet overhead when possible */
> > > + hfp = max(hfp - 6, 0);
> > > + hbp = max(hbp - 6, 0);
> > > + hsa = max(hsa - 6, 0);
> >
> > 6 blanking packet overhead here means, 4 bytes + payload + 2 bytes
> > format? does this packet overhead depends on the respective porch's
> > like hpf, hbp and hsa has different packet overheads?
>
> Lucas might be able to explain this better. However, it does match
> the values of the downstream NXP kernel, and I tried playing with
> these values manually, and 6 appeared to be the only number that
> seemed to work for me too. I abandoned my approach for Lucas'
> implementation, because it seemed more clear than mine.
> Maybe Lucas can chime in, since this is really his patch.
Lucan, any inputs?
Jagan.
