Hi,
On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 9:26 AM <neil.armstrong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 27/08/2024 17:36, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 8:49 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 6:51 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 regression
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Same 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> Neil
> >>>
> >>> IMO: 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?
> >>>
> >>> Personally I think patch #2 could go in anytime since, as people have
> >>> said, things are pretty broken today and the worst that happens is
> >>> that someone gets an extra warning. That would be my preference. That
> >>> being said, we could also snooze that patch for a month or two and
> >>> land it later. There's no real hurry.
> >>
> >> For now I'm going to snooze this patch for a month just to avoid any
> >> controversy. I'll plan to apply it (to drm-misc-next) when I see the
> >> device tree patch land. Since the device tree patch should land as a
> >> fix that should keep things landing in the correct order. ...and, as
> >> per above, the worst case is that if someone has an old DTS and a new
> >> kernel then a panel that was already not working well will print a fat
> >> warning and startup a bit slower.
> >>
> >> If somehow I mess up and forget about this patch, feel free to send me
> >> a poke when the device tree patch is landed.
> >
> > More than a month has passed now. One last warning before I apply this
> > revert in a few more days.
>
> It's fine if you apply it now
Thanks! Pushed to drm-misc-next:
[2/4] Revert "drm/panel-edp: Add SDC ATNA45AF01"
commit: 01cc7b2e8a59fcae0c4493720561e5b33a195fe7
-Doug
