On 15/07/2024 16:40, Doug Anderson wrote:
Hi, On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 6:57 AM <neil.armstrong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On 15/07/2024 15:51, Doug Anderson wrote:Hi, On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 6:02 AM Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On 15/07/2024 14:54, Stephan Gerhold wrote:On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 02:42:12PM +0200, Neil Armstrong wrote:On 15/07/2024 14:15, Stephan Gerhold wrote:This reverts commit 8ebb1fc2e69ab8b89a425e402c7bd85e053b7b01. The panel should be handled through the samsung-atna33xc20 driver for correct power up timings. Otherwise the backlight does not work correctly. We have existing users of this panel through the generic "edp-panel" compatible (e.g. the Qualcomm X1E80100 CRD), but the screen works only partially in that configuration: It works after boot but once the screen gets disabled it does not turn on again until after reboot. It behaves the same way with the default "conservative" timings, so we might as well drop the configuration from the panel-edp driver. That way, users with old DTBs will get a warning and can move to the new driver. Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Stephan Gerhold <stephan.gerhold@xxxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-edp.c | 2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-edp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-edp.c index 3a574a9b46e7..d2d682385e89 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-edp.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-edp.c @@ -1960,8 +1960,6 @@ static const struct edp_panel_entry edp_panels[] = { EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('L', 'G', 'D', 0x05af, &delay_200_500_e200_d200, "Unknown"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('L', 'G', 'D', 0x05f1, &delay_200_500_e200_d200, "Unknown"), - EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('S', 'D', 'C', 0x416d, &delay_100_500_e200, "ATNA45AF01"), - EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('S', 'H', 'P', 0x1511, &delay_200_500_e50, "LQ140M1JW48"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('S', 'H', 'P', 0x1523, &delay_80_500_e50, "LQ140M1JW46"), EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('S', 'H', 'P', 0x153a, &delay_200_500_e50, "LQ140T1JH01"),How will we handle current/old crd DT with new kernels ?I think this is answered in the commit message:We have existing users of this panel through the generic "edp-panel" compatible (e.g. the Qualcomm X1E80100 CRD), but the screen works only partially in that configuration: It works after boot but once the screen gets disabled it does not turn on again until after reboot. It behaves the same way with the default "conservative" timings, so we might as well drop the configuration from the panel-edp driver. That way, users with old DTBs will get a warning and can move to the new driver.Basically with the entry removed, the panel-edp driver will fallback to default "conservative" timings when using old DTBs. There will be a warning in dmesg, but otherwise the panel will somewhat work just as before. I think this is a good way to remind users to upgrade.I consider this as a regressionSame question for patch 3, thie serie introduces a bindings that won't be valid if we backport patch 3. I don't think patch should be backported, and this patch should be dropped.There would be a dtbs_check warning, yeah. Functionally, it would work just fine. Is that reason enough to keep display partially broken for 6.11? We could also apply the minor binding change for 6.11 if needed.I don't know how to answer this, I'll let the DT maintainer comment this. The problem is I do not think we can pass the whole patchset as fixes for v6.11, patches 2 & 3 could, patches 1 & 4 definitely can't. NeilIMO: patch #3 (dts) and #4 (CONFIG) go through the Qualcomm tree whenever those folks agree to it. If we're worried about the dtbs_check breakage I personally wouldn't mind "Ack"ing patch #1 to go through the Qualcomm tree as long as it made it into 6.11-rc1. I have a hunch that there are going to be more Samsung OLED panels in the future that will need to touch the same file, but if the change is in -rc1 it should make it back into drm-misc quickly, right?Not sure the Soc maintainer would accept any patches for -rc1 at this point, but Bjorn can try to push both #3 and #4 as fixes for -rc2.Yeah, I guess it's pretty late for -rc1.Not sure #1 would be accepted as fix via any tree, but having a bindings error for a kernel release is not a big deal if in-fine the bindings change has been reviewed and queued for next version.In general my understanding is that we don't worry too much about temporary bindings errors as long as things meet up in linuxnext and get fixed. ...but in this case we're talking about the dts going into 6.11 and the bindings in 6.12 which means that v6.11 will be released and still have the bindings error. That's non-ideal... Can we really not consider the bindings as "Fix" since it's required to pass dts validation for the dts patch which is a "Fix"? If we can consider this bindings change a Fix then we could land it in drm-misc-fixes and then things could meet up nicely I think, right?
Probably, we'll need insight from Krzysztof/Conor/Rob on this point, and perhaps Maxime aswell. Neil
-Doug
