On Tue, 11 Aug 2021, "Lee, Shawn C" <shawn.c.lee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Aug 2021, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>On Tue, 10 Aug 2021, "Lee, Shawn C" <shawn.c.lee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>On Fri, 23 Jul 2021, Lee Shawn C <shawn.c.lee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> DSI driver should have its own implementation to toggle gpio pins
>>>>> based on GPIO info coming from VBT sequences.
>>>>
>>>>Why?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Without this change, we are not able to control gpio signal output to
>>> meet MIPI panel's requirement for power on/off sequence.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cc: Ville Syrjala <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Cc: Vandita Kulkarni <vandita.kulkarni@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Cc: Cooper Chiou <cooper.chiou@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Cc: William Tseng <william.tseng@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Lee Shawn C <shawn.c.lee@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dsi_vbt.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++-
>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h | 10 +++++
>>>>> 2 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dsi_vbt.c
>>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dsi_vbt.c
>>>>> index cc93e045a425..dd03e5629ba6 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dsi_vbt.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dsi_vbt.c
>>>>> @@ -43,6 +43,7 @@
>>>>> #include "intel_display_types.h"
>>>>> #include "intel_dsi.h"
>>>>> #include "intel_sideband.h"
>>>>> +#include "intel_de.h"
>>>>>
>>>>> #define MIPI_TRANSFER_MODE_SHIFT 0
>>>>> #define MIPI_VIRTUAL_CHANNEL_SHIFT 1 @@ -354,7 +355,48 @@ static
>>>>> void bxt_exec_gpio(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, static void
>>>>> icl_exec_gpio(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>>>>> u8 gpio_source, u8 gpio_index, bool value) {
>>>>> - drm_dbg_kms(&dev_priv->drm, "Skipping ICL GPIO element execution\n");
>>>>> + u32 val;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + switch (gpio_index) {
>>>>> + case ICL_GPIO_L_VDDEN_1:
>>>>> + val = intel_de_read(dev_priv, ICP_PP_CONTROL(1));
>>>>> + if (value)
>>>>> + val |= PWR_STATE_TARGET;
>>>>> + else
>>>>> + val &= ~PWR_STATE_TARGET;
>>>>> + intel_de_write(dev_priv, ICP_PP_CONTROL(1), val);
>>>>
>>>>All the PPS access should be in intel_pps.[ch] and protected with the pps mutex.
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK! We will move icl_exec_gpio() into intel_pps.c and use pps mutex to protect it.
>>>
Just my two cents. All the MIPI DSI sequences are about panel power on, off and initialize.
Refer to intel_dp_aux_xfer(). How about to add intel_pps_lock/unlock in intel_dsi_vbt_exec_sequence()
to protect every MIPI sequence? And we can keep these code in this file for MIPI DSI only.
Best regards,
Shawn
>>>>> + break;
>>>>> + case ICL_GPIO_L_BKLTEN_1:
>>>>> + val = intel_de_read(dev_priv, ICP_PP_CONTROL(1));
>>>>> + if (value)
>>>>> + val |= BACKLIGHT_ENABLE;
>>>>> + else
>>>>> + val &= ~BACKLIGHT_ENABLE;
>>>>> + intel_de_write(dev_priv, ICP_PP_CONTROL(1), val);
>>>>> + break;
>>>>> + case ICL_GPIO_DDPA_CTRLCLK_1:
>>>>> + val = intel_de_read(dev_priv, GPIO(1));
>>>>> + if (value)
>>>>> + val |= GPIO_CLOCK_VAL_OUT;
>>>>> + else
>>>>> + val &= ~GPIO_CLOCK_VAL_OUT;
>>>>> + val |= GPIO_CLOCK_DIR_MASK | GPIO_CLOCK_DIR_OUT | GPIO_CLOCK_VAL_MASK;
>>>>> + intel_de_write(dev_priv, GPIO(1), val);
>>>>> + break;
>>>>> + case ICL_GPIO_DDPA_CTRLDATA_1:
>>>>> + val = intel_de_read(dev_priv, GPIO(1));
>>>>> + if (value)
>>>>> + val |= GPIO_DATA_VAL_OUT;
>>>>> + else
>>>>> + val &= ~GPIO_DATA_VAL_OUT;
>>>>> + val |= GPIO_DATA_DIR_MASK | GPIO_DATA_DIR_OUT | GPIO_DATA_VAL_MASK;
>>>>> + intel_de_write(dev_priv, GPIO(1), val);
>>>>> + break;
>>>>> + default:
>>>>> + /* TODO: Add support for remaining GPIOs */
>>>>> + DRM_ERROR("Invalid GPIO number (%d) from VBT\n", gpio_index);
>>>>> + break;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> static const u8 *mipi_exec_gpio(struct intel_dsi *intel_dsi, const
>>>>> u8
>>>>> *data) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
>>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h index 943fe485c662..b725234e0e9c
>>>>> 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
>>>>> @@ -5143,6 +5143,16 @@ enum {
>>>>> #define _PP_STATUS 0x61200
>>>>> #define PP_STATUS(pps_idx) _MMIO_PPS(pps_idx, _PP_STATUS)
>>>>> #define PP_ON REG_BIT(31)
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#define _PP_CONTROL_1 0xc7204
>>>>> +#define _PP_CONTROL_2 0xc7304
>>>>> +#define ICP_PP_CONTROL(x) _MMIO(((x) == 1) ? _PP_CONTROL_1 : \
>>>>> + _PP_CONTROL_2)
>>>>> +#define POWER_CYCLE_DELAY_MASK REG_GENMASK(8, 4)
>>>>> +#define VDD_OVERRIDE_FORCE REG_BIT(3)
>>>>> +#define BACKLIGHT_ENABLE REG_BIT(2)
>>>>> +#define PWR_DOWN_ON_RESET REG_BIT(1)
>>>>> +#define PWR_STATE_TARGET REG_BIT(0)
>>>>
>>>>These are all duplicate defines for existing PP_CONTROL() registers and macros.
>>>
>>> I found this patch on drm-tip branch and removed PP_CONTRL() defines.
>>> https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/291095/
>>
>>Look for PP_CONTROL(), not ICL_PP_CONTROL().
>>
>
>PP_CONTROL() mapped to PPS_BASE (0x61200) register. It looks to me driver may need a new define like _MMIO_PPS that map to PCH_PPS_BASE (0xC7200). What do you think?
>
>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Shawn
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> /*
>>>>> * Indicates that all dependencies of the panel are on:
>>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
>>>>
