On 2 September 2013 12:52, Inki Dae <inki.dae@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Rahul Sharma [mailto:r.sh.open@xxxxxxxxx] >> Sent: Monday, September 02, 2013 3:28 PM >> To: Inki Dae >> Cc: Rahul Sharma; linux-samsung-soc; dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; >> Kukjin Kim; sw0312.kim; Sean Paul; Lucas Stach; Tomasz Figa; Sylwester >> Nawrocki; sunil joshi >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] drm/exynos: move hdmiphy related code to hdmiphy >> driver >> >> On 2 September 2013 10:38, Inki Dae <inki.dae@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Hi Rahul, >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: linux-samsung-soc-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-samsung- >> soc- >> >> owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rahul Sharma >> >> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 7:06 PM >> >> To: Inki Dae >> >> Cc: Rahul Sharma; linux-samsung-soc; dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; >> >> Kukjin Kim; sw0312.kim; Sean Paul; Lucas Stach; Tomasz Figa; Sylwester >> >> Nawrocki; sunil joshi >> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] drm/exynos: move hdmiphy related code to >> hdmiphy >> >> driver >> >> >> >> Thanks Mr. Dae, >> >> >> >> I have some points for discussion. >> >> >> >> On 30 August 2013 14:03, Inki Dae <inki.dae@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > Hi Rahul. >> >> > >> >> > Thanks for your patch set. >> >> > >> >> > I had just quick review to all patch series. And I think we could >> fully >> >> hide >> >> > hdmiphy interfaces, >> >> > exynos_hdmiphy_enable/disable/check_mode/set_mode/conf_apply, from >> hdmi >> >> > driver. >> >> > That may be prototyped like below, >> >> > >> >> > at exynos_hdmi.h >> >> > >> >> > /* Define hdmiphy callbacks. */ >> >> > struct exynos_hdmiphy_ops { >> >> > void (*enable)(struct device *dev); >> >> > void (*disable)(struct device *dev); >> >> > int (*check_mode)(struct device *dev, struct drm_display_mode >> >> > *mode); >> >> > int (*set_mode)(struct device *dev, struct drm_display_mode >> > *mode); >> >> > int (*apply)(struct device *dev); >> >> > }; >> >> > >> >> >> >> Above looks fine to me. I will hide the ops as you suggested. >> >> >> >> > >> >> > at exynos_hdmi.c >> >> > >> >> > /* >> >> > * Add a new structure for hdmi driver data. >> >> > * type could be HDMI_TYPE13 or HDMI_TYPE14. >> >> > * i2c_hdmiphy could be true or false: true means that current hdmi >> >> device >> >> > uses i2c >> >> > * based hdmiphy device, otherwise platform device based one. >> >> > */ >> >> > struct hdmi_drv_data { >> >> > unsigned int type; >> >> > unsigned int i2c_hdmiphy; >> >> > }; >> >> > >> >> > ... >> >> > >> >> > /* Add new members to hdmi context. */ >> >> > struct hdmi_context { >> >> > ... >> >> > struct hdmi_drv_data *drv_data; >> >> > struct hdmiphy_ops *ops; >> >> > ... >> >> > }; >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > /* Add hdmi device data according Exynos SoC. */ >> >> > static struct hdmi_drv_data exynos4212_hdmi_drv_data = { >> >> > .type = HDMI_TYPE14, >> >> > .i2c_hdmiphy = true >> >> > }; >> >> > >> >> > static struct hdmi_drv_data exynos5420_hdmi_drv_data = { >> >> > .type = HDMI_TYPE14, >> >> > .i2c_hdmiphy = false >> >> > }; >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > static struct of_device_id hdmi_match_types[] = { >> >> > { >> >> > .compatible = "samsung,exynos4212-hdmi", >> >> > .data = (void *)&exynos4212_hdmi_drv_data, >> >> > }, { >> >> > ... >> >> > >> >> > .compatible = "samsung,exynos5420-hdmi", >> >> > .data = (void *)&exynos5420_hdmi_drv_data, >> >> > }, { >> >> > } >> >> > }; >> >> > >> >> > /* the below example function shows how hdmiphy interfaces can be >> hided >> >> from >> >> > hdmi driver. */ >> >> > static void hdmi_mode_set(...) >> >> > { >> >> > ... >> >> > hdata->ops->set_mode(hdata->hdmiphy_dev, mode); >> >> >> >> This looks fine. >> >> >> >> > } >> >> > >> >> > static int hdmi_get_phy_device(struct hdmi_context *hdata) >> >> > { >> >> > struct hdmi_drv_data *data = hdata->drv_data; >> >> > >> >> > ... >> >> > /* Register hdmiphy driver according to i2c_hdmiphy value. */ >> >> > ret = exynos_hdmiphy_driver_register(data->i2c_hdmiphy); >> >> > ... >> >> > /* Get hdmiphy driver ops according to i2c_hdmiphy value. */ >> >> > hdata->ops = exynos_hdmiphy_get_ops(data->i2c_hdmiphy); >> >> > ... >> >> > } >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > at exynos_hdmiphy.c >> >> > >> >> > /* Define hdmiphy ops respectively. */ >> >> > struct exynos_hdmiphy_ops hdmiphy_i2c_ops = { >> >> > .enable = exynos_hdmiphy_i2c_enable, >> >> > .disable = exynos_hdmiphy_i2c_disable, >> >> > ... >> >> > }; >> >> > >> >> > struct exynos_hdmiphy_ops hdmiphy_platdev_ops = { >> >> > .enable = exynos_hdmiphy_platdev_enable, >> >> > .disable = exynos_hdmiphy_platdev_disable, >> >> > ... >> >> > }; >> >> >> >> Actually, Ops for Hdmiphy I2c and platform devices are exactly >> >> same. We don't need 2 sets. Only difference is in static function to >> >> write configuration values to phy. Based on i2c_verify_client(hdata- >> >dev), >> >> we use i2c_master_send or writeb. >> >> >> >> > >> >> > struct exynos_hdmiphy_ops *exynos_hdmiphy_get_ops(unsigned int >> >> i2c_hdmiphy) >> >> > { >> >> > /* Return hdmiphy ops appropriately according to i2c_hdmiphy. >> */ >> >> > if (i2c_hdmiphy) >> >> > return &hdmiphy_i2c_ops; >> >> > >> >> > return &hdmiphy_platdev_ops; >> >> > } >> >> >> >> We don't need i2c_hdmiphy flag from the hdmi driver. After probe, >> >> this information is available in hdmiphy driver itself. >> >> >> >> > >> >> > int exynos_hdmiphy_driver_register(unsigned int i2c_hdmiphy) >> >> > { >> >> > ... >> >> > /* Register hdmiphy driver appropriately according to >> > i2c_hdmiphy. >> >> > */ >> >> > if (i2c_hdmiphy) { >> >> > ret = i2c_add_driver(&hdmiphy_i2c_driver); >> >> > ... >> >> > } else { >> >> > ret = >> > platform_driver_register(&hdmiphy_platform_driver); >> >> > ... >> >> > } >> >> > >> >> >> >> Here i2c_hdmiphy flag helps in avoiding registering both i2c >> >> and platform drivers for phy. But is it a concern that we should >> >> not register 2 drivers on different buses for single hw device. I am >> >> still not clear on this. >> >> >> >> Otherwise we do not need to maintain i2c_hdmiphy flag. >> >> >> >> Secondly, we always have registration of i2c driver for ddc and >> >> hdmiphy driver in hdmi probe. It works. I have also tested above >> >> series for 5420 and 5250 smdk board. There are no issues. >> >> >> > >> > Can you re-check it? I guess platform_driver_register function would be >> > failed. Actually, I had faced with same issue at hdmi initial work. And >> then >> > only thing we have to discuss is different buses issue on single hw >> device >> > if the above case really works fine. >> > >> Mr. dae, >> >> I have re-confirmed. It is working fine. No failure during registering >> platform >> device. Probe hits immediately after registration. I tried 8~9 times. >> No failure. >> see logs: >> >> # dmesg | grep -i RSH >> [ 0.895000] [RSH][hdmi_probe][1719] Starting phy registeration >> [ 0.900000] [RSH][hdmiphy_platform_device_probe Enter][644] >> [ 0.905000] [RSH][hdmiphy_platform_device_probe Exit Success][683] >> [ 0.910000] [RSH][exynos_hdmiphy_driver_register][768] Phy >> registeration Success. >> [ 0.915000] [RSH][hdmi_probe][1729] Phy registeration completed. >> > > Great. I will also re-check it. > >> > For this, my opinion is to separate the hdmiphy driver into i2c based >> and >> > platform device based drivers; they include same common header file >> > containing phy configuration data. And it makes hdmi driver call >> > exynos_hdmiphy_driver_register function in i2c based hdmiphy or platform >> > device based hdmiphy drivers according to hdmi driver data. >> > >> >> I am fine with it. We can register hdmiphy-i2c or hdmiphy-platform >> driver based on the flag from hdmi driver. But we can still keep both >> the drivers in exynos_hdmiphy.c. file and let them share most of the >> other callbacks. >> > > Is there any mainline driver that keeps two bus drivers; i2c and platform > device, in one file? I'm not sure that this is a good way. So it seems good I haven't come across any such mainline driver. I always have this doubt. If it is not fitting properly, I will implement 2 different drivers in 2 files (exynos_hdmiphy_i2c.c and exynos_hdmiphy_platform.c). Regards, Rahul Sharma. > to keep two hdmiphy drivers: One is based on i2c bus, and other is based on > platform device. Anyway, we should keep different type's drivers because > Exynos SoC has different type's hdmiphy IP; based on i2c or memory mapped > IO. > > Thanks, > Inki Dae > >> regards, >> Rahul Sharma. >> >> > However, we may need to re-design it if the above case is failed. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Inki Dae >> > >> > >> >> regards, >> >> Rahul Sharma. >> >> >> >> > return ret; >> >> > } >> >> > >> >> > Thanks, >> >> > Inki Dae >> >> > >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> >> From: Rahul Sharma [mailto:rahul.sharma@xxxxxxxxxxx] >> >> >> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 3:59 PM >> >> >> To: linux-samsung-soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dri- >> devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> >> >> Cc: kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx; sw0312.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx; >> > inki.dae@xxxxxxxxxxx; >> >> >> seanpaul@xxxxxxxxxxxx; l.stach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > tomasz.figa@xxxxxxxxx; >> >> >> s.nawrocki@xxxxxxxxxxx; joshi@xxxxxxxxxxx; r.sh.open@xxxxxxxxx; >> Rahul >> >> >> Sharma >> >> >> Subject: [PATCH 0/7] drm/exynos: move hdmiphy related code to >> hdmiphy >> >> >> driver >> >> >> >> >> >> Currently, exynos hdmiphy operations and configs are kept >> >> >> inside the hdmi driver. Hdmiphy related code is tightly >> >> >> coupled with hdmi IP driver. >> >> >> >> >> >> This series also removes hdmiphy dummy clock for hdmiphy >> >> >> and replace it with Phy PMU Control from the hdmiphy driver. >> >> >> >> >> >> At the end, support for exynos5420 hdmiphy is added to the >> >> >> hdmiphy driver which is a platform device. >> >> >> >> >> >> Drm related paches are based on exynos-drm-next branch at >> >> >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/daeinki/drm-exynos.git >> >> >> >> >> >> Arch patches are dependent on >> >> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-samsung- >> >> >> soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg22195.html >> >> >> >> >> >> Rahul Sharma (7): >> >> >> drm/exynos: move hdmiphy related code to hdmiphy driver >> >> >> drm/exynos: remove dummy hdmiphy clock >> >> >> drm/exynos: add hdmiphy pmu bit control in hdmiphy driver >> >> >> drm/exynos: add support for exynos5420 hdmiphy >> >> >> exynos/drm: fix ddc i2c device probe failure >> >> >> ARM: dts: update hdmiphy dt node for exynos5250 >> >> >> ARM: dts: update hdmiphy dt node for exynos5420 >> >> >> >> >> >> .../devicetree/bindings/video/exynos_hdmi.txt | 2 + >> >> >> .../devicetree/bindings/video/exynos_hdmiphy.txt | 6 + >> >> >> arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-smdk5250.dts | 9 +- >> >> >> arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5420.dtsi | 12 + >> >> >> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_ddc.c | 5 + >> >> >> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_hdmi.h | 13 + >> >> >> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_hdmi.c | 353 > ++-------- >> >> >> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_hdmiphy.c | 738 >> >> >> +++++++++++++++++++- >> >> >> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/regs-hdmiphy.h | 35 + >> >> >> 9 files changed, 868 insertions(+), 305 deletions(-) >> >> >> create mode 100644 drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/regs-hdmiphy.h >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> 1.7.10.4 >> >> > >> >> -- >> >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux- >> samsung- >> >> soc" in >> >> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> > > _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
