On 18/08/2023 11:25, neil.armstrong@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Hi Dmitry,
On 17/08/2023 20:35, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On 16/08/2023 10:51, neil.armstrong@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Hi Abhinav,
On 14/08/2023 20:02, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
<snip>
Sending HS commands will always work on any controller, it's all
about LP commands.
The Samsung panels you listed only send HS commands so they can use
prepare_prev_first
and work on any controllers.
I think there is some misunderstanding there, supported by the
description of the flag.
If I remember correctly, some hosts (sunxi) can not send DCS commands
after enabling video stream and switching to HS mode, see [1]. Thus,
as you know, most of the drivers have all DSI panel setup commands in
drm_panel_funcs::prepare() / drm_bridge_funcs::pre_enable() callbacks,
not paying attention whether these commands are to be sent in LP or in
HS mode.
Previously DSI source drivers could power on the DSI link either in
mode_set() or in pre_enable() callbacks, with mode_set() being the
hack to make panel/bridge drivers to be able to send commands from
their prepare() / pre_enable() callbacks.
With the prev_first flags being introduced, we have established that
DSI link should be enabled in DSI host's pre_enable() callback and
switched to HS mode (be it command or video) in the enable() callback.
So far so good.
It seems coherent, I would like first to have a state of all DSI host
drivers and make this would actually work first before adding the
prev_first flag to all the required panels.
Unfortunately this change is not fully backwards-compatible. This
requires that all DSI panels sending commands from prepare() should
have the prepare_prev_first flag. In some sense, all such patches
might have Fixes: 5ea6b1702781 ("drm/panel: Add prepare_prev_first
flag to drm_panel").
This kind of migration should be done *before* any possible regression,
not the other way round.
If all panels sending commands from prepare() should have the
prepare_prev_first flag, then it should be first, check for regressions
then continue.
<snip>
I understand, but this patch doesn't qualify as a fix for
9e15123eca79 and is too late to be merged in drm-misc-next for v6.6,
and since 9e15123eca79 actually breaks some support it should be
reverted (+ deps) since we are late in the rc cycles.
If we go this way, we can never reapply these patches. There will be
no guarantee that all panel drivers are completely converted. We
already have a story without an observable end -
DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR.
I don't understand this point, who would block re-applying the patches ?
Consider us reverting 9e15123eca79 now and then reapplying it next
cycle. Then another panel / bridge that was not converted to use
pre_enable_prev_first pops up. And suddently we have to revert them again.
The migration to DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR was done over multiple
Linux version and went smoothly because we reverted
regressing patches and restarted when needed, I don't understand why we
can't do this here aswell.
With DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR both host and peripheral drivers
were involved. This way they share knowledge about the migration state.
With prev_first we do not have such shared knowledge. Host assumes that
it can work according to the documentation: turn DSI link to LP-11 in
pre_enable(), switch to HS in enable(). It can not check whether the
next bridge did not set pre_enable_prev_first because of it not being
required (like for the Parade bridge) or because next bridge is not
converted yet (and thus DSI host should power up the link in
atomic_mode_set).
Granted that there is no way for the DSI host driver to attune itself to
the DSI peripheral driver requirements, I can only consider
corresponding (requiring prev_first) panel drivers broken since
5ea6b1702781 ("drm/panel: Add prepare_prev_first flag to drm_panel") and
all bridge drivers with this issue broken since 4fb912e5e190
("drm/bridge: Introduce pre_enable_prev_first to alter bridge init order").
I'd consider that the DSI driver is correct here and it is about the
panel drivers that require fixes patches. If you care about the
particular Fixes tag, I have provided one several lines above.
Unfortunately it should be done in the other way round, prepare for
migration, then migrate,
I mean if it's a required migration, then it should be done and I'll
support it from both bridge and panel PoV.
So, first this patch has the wrong Fixes tag, and I would like a better
explanation on the commit message in any case.
Then I would like to have an ack from some drm-misc maintainers before
applying it because it fixes a patch that
was sent via the msm tree thus per the drm-misc rules I cannot apply it
via the drm-misc-next-fixes tree.
Neil
<snip>
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
