Am Dienstag, den 02.07.2013, 18:46 -0700 schrieb Stéphane Marchesin: > On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Dave Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 7:50 AM, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:25:48PM +0100, Russell King wrote: > >>> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:57:32PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: > >>> > I am against a super node which contains lcd and dcon/ire nodes. You can > >>> > enable those devices on a per board basis. We add them to dove.dtsi but > >>> > disable them by default (status = "disabled"). > >>> > > >>> > The DRM driver itself should get a video-card node outside of > >>> > soc/internal-regs where you can put e.g. video memory hole (or video > >>> > mem size if it will be taken from RAM later) > >>> > > >>> > About the unusual case, I guess we should try to get both lcd > >>> > controllers into one DRM driver. Then support mirror or screen > >>> > extension X already provides. For those applications where you want > >>> > X on one lcd and some other totally different video stream - wait > >>> > for someone to come up with a request or proposal. > >>> > >>> Well, all I can say then is that the onus is on those who want to treat > >>> the components as separate devices to come up with some foolproof way > >>> to solve this problem which doesn't involve making assumptions about > >>> the way that devices are probed and doesn't end up creating artificial > >>> restrictions on how the devices can be used - and doesn't end up burdening > >>> the common case with lots of useless complexity that they don't need. > >>> > >>> It's _that_ case which needs to come up with a proposal about how to > >>> handle it because you _can't_ handle it at the moment in any sane > >>> manner which meets the criteria I've set out above, and at the moment > >>> the best proposal by far to resolve that is the "super node" approach. > >>> > >>> There is _no_ way in the device model to combine several individual > >>> devices together into one logical device safely when the subsystem > >>> requires that there be a definite point where everything is known. > >>> That applies even more so with -EPROBE_DEFER. With the presence of > >>> such a thing, there is now no logical point where any code can say > >>> definitively that the system has technically finished booting and all > >>> resources are known. > >>> > >>> That's the problem - if you don't od the super-node approach, you end > >>> up with lots of individual devices which you have to figure out some > >>> way of combining, and coping with missing ones which might not be > >>> available in the order you want them to be, etc. > >>> > >>> That's the advantage of the "super node" approach - it's a container > >>> to tell you what's required in order to complete the creation of the > >>> logical device, and you can parse the sub-nodes to locate the > >>> information you need. > >> > >> I think such an approach would lead to drm drivers which all parse their > >> "super nodes" themselves and driver authors would become very creative > >> how such a node should look like. > >> > >> Also this gets messy with i2c devices which are normally registered > >> under their i2c bus masters. With the super node approach these would > >> have to live under the super node, maybe with a phandle to the i2c bus > >> master. This again probably leads to very SoC specific solutions. It > >> also doesn't solve the problem that the i2c bus master needs to be > >> registered by the time the DRM driver probes. > >> > >> On i.MX the IPU unit not only handles the display path but also the > >> capture path. v4l2 begins to evolve an OF model in which each (sub)device > >> has its natural position in the devicetree; the devices are then > >> connected with phandles. I'm not sure how good this will work together > >> with a super node approach. > >> > >>> > >>> An alternative as I see it is that DRM - and not only DRM but also > >>> the DRM API and Xorg - would need to evolve hotplug support for the > >>> various parts of the display subsystem. Do we have enough people > >>> with sufficient knowledge and willingness to be able to make all > >>> that happen? I don't think we do, and I don't see that there's any > >>> funding out there to make such a project happen, which would make it > >>> a volunteer/spare time effort. > >> > >> +1 for this solution, even if this means more work to get from the > >> ground. > >> > >> Do we really need full hotplug support in the DRM API and Xorg? I mean > >> it would really be nice if Xorg detected a newly registered device, but > >> as a start it should be sufficient when Xorg detects what's there when > >> it starts, no? > > > > Since fbdev and fbcon sit on top of drm to provide the console > > currently I'd also expect some fun with them. How do I get a console > > if I have no outputs at boot, but I have crtcs? do I just wait around > > until an output appears. > > > > There are a number of issues with hotplugging encoders and connectors > > at runtime, when really the SoC/board designer knows what it provides > > and should be able to tell the driver in some fashion. > > > > The main problems when I played with hot adding eDP on Intel last > > time, are we have grouping of crtc/encoder/connectors for multi-seat > > future use, these groups need to be updated, and I think the other > > issue was updating the possible_crtcs/possible_clones stuff. In theory > > sending X a uevent will make it reload the list, and it mostly deals > > with device hotplug since 1.14 when I added the USB hotplug support. > > > > I'm not saying this is a bad idea, but really it seems pointless where > > the hardware is pretty much hardcoded, that DT can't represent that > > and let the driver control the bring up ordering. > > > > Have you also considered how suspend/resume works in such a place, > > where every driver is independent? The ChromeOS guys have bitched > > before about the exynos driver which is has lots of sub-drivers, how > > do you control the s/r ordering in a crazy system like that? I'd > > prefer a central driver, otherwise there is too many moving parts. > > In my experience with exynos, having separate drivers creates a lot of > pain at the interfaces and transitions: > > - on boot you need to make sure that those multiple drivers initialize > in the right order. If one comes up too late, the next one doesn't get > the EDID through some passthrough or loses a hotplug interrupt. > > - on dpms or on modeset, the order in which things change is also > important. For example if you have a DisplayPort bridge you sometimes > need to train the link with a signal from the previous component, if > the signal isn't there yet training fails. > > - on suspend/resume, turning things on/off in the right order is also > important. Again that can bite you when one component implicitly > relies on the next guy in the chain to hold its signal or its clock > until it's off. As you add/remove drivers in other places, the driver > suspend/resume queues will order operations differently and will > expose or hide race conditions. The bug reports look like "Graphics > crashes when I enable the wifi". Another example is that the screen > was showing noise for a second when resuming; this happens because the > bridge is up first and doesn't have data to show. Or you turn on the > first chip, but it needs a passthrough for the HPD line from the next > guy which isn't up yet. So you decide that actually nothing is plugged > in and you give up. > > - the pm_runtime stuff is entangled with the code. grep tells me there > are 67 lines containing "pm_runtime" in exynos drm. A lot of it is > non-obvious. > > - each driver needs to be self-standing and needs to keep some of its > own state. Things like "am I suspended or not" don't need to be > re-implemented in each driver. However if you can suspend/resume in > arbitrary order and want to synchronize with your buddies, then you > need to know your state. exynos drivers do their own state tracking > (grep -- "->suspended") > > So overall, yes you can make it "work" with multiple small, > independent drivers where each driver has its own device tree node. > However you will need global variables to synchronize these drivers. > You will need cross-driver function calls (exynos_drm_device_register) > to make it work. You will need to add loops to wait for the previous > component to successfully initialize (or shutdown), and only then kick > DisplayPort link training (or turn the transmitter off). That makes > the code convoluted, and it's really hard to make it work well and to > maintain it. In my opinion this is much more work to debug this than > to just order things right from the start. It also doesn't scale as > you add more drivers. > > So we went in the super-node direction. What we do in Chrome OS (and > we're still working on this; we still have separate DT nodes which we > plan to merge which is the last step) is look at the device tree > during DRM initialization to know which chips are present. With that > we know which subdrivers to instantiate into DRM abstractions. We then > use the normal DRM code for everything*. Since most issues I outlined > above revolve around ordering, they disappear once you turn your > separate drivers into proper DRM components. You also don't need > pm_runtime in there at all if you use DRM properly, because instead > suspend/resume will call DRM which will call into the dpms callbacks > as needed. For exynos we could also remove most of the per-driver > state tracking (DRM does it for you) and also remove code used to wrap > a non-DRM driver into a DRM driver (see exynos_drm_hdmi.c for an > example of such a wrapper). > >From our perspective we really want to share drivers for specific sub-components of a DRM device between different SoCs. We don't want to hardwire the code for a specific encoder into one DRM driver and copy-paste things for the next SoC which comes around. I think we should really differentiate between the Linux device core mechanics and having small self contained drivers for sub-components. I think we all agree on the point that we need some kind of control node that represents the DRM device to userspace in the end. This control node can do all the hard stuff like getting suspend/resume and other order critical things right. We clearly don't want to rely on some random Linux device core governed probe or suspend/resume order. What we want is small self-contained drivers for the sub-components that can be probed from the DT. Such a driver should not try to active it's driven hardware on probe time, but rather just signal it's existence to the control node. The control node can then (maybe at it's own open() time) look at all the registered sub-components and build a output path from them. Only at this point you try to active things so you can exactly control the order from your control node. This means introducing some generic interfaces for encoders, crtcs and connectors, but hey this is just in-kernel API, so we don't have to get this completely right on the first try. Regards, Lucas -- Pengutronix e.K. | Lucas Stach | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-5076 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
