On 2020-08-15 15:45, Rob Clark wrote:
On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 2:21 PM Jonathan Marek <jonathan@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On 8/15/20 4:20 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 10:05 AM Dmitry Baryshkov
> <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12/08/2020 07:42, Tanmay Shah wrote:
>> > From: Chandan Uddaraju <chandanu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >
>> > Add the needed DP PLL specific files to support
>> > display port interface on msm targets.
>>
>> [skipped]
>>
>> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_pll_private.h
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_pll_private.h
>> > new file mode 100644
>> > index 000000000000..475ba6ed59ab
>> > --- /dev/null
>> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_pll_private.h
>> > @@ -0,0 +1,98 @@
>> > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
>> > +/*
>> > + * Copyright (c) 2016-2020, The Linux Foundation. All rights
reserved.
>> > + */
>> > +
>> > +#ifndef __DP_PLL_10NM_H
>> > +#define __DP_PLL_10NM_H
>> > +
>> > +#include "dp_pll.h"
>> > +#include "dp_reg.h"
>> > +
>> > +#define DP_VCO_HSCLK_RATE_1620MHZDIV1000 1620000UL
>> > +#define DP_VCO_HSCLK_RATE_2700MHZDIV1000 2700000UL
>> > +#define DP_VCO_HSCLK_RATE_5400MHZDIV1000 5400000UL
>> > +#define DP_VCO_HSCLK_RATE_8100MHZDIV1000 8100000UL
>> > +
>> > +#define NUM_DP_CLOCKS_MAX 6
>> > +
>> > +#define DP_PHY_PLL_POLL_SLEEP_US 500
>> > +#define DP_PHY_PLL_POLL_TIMEOUT_US 10000
>> > +
>> > +#define DP_VCO_RATE_8100MHZDIV1000 8100000UL
>> > +#define DP_VCO_RATE_9720MHZDIV1000 9720000UL
>> > +#define DP_VCO_RATE_10800MHZDIV1000 10800000UL
>> > +
>> > +struct dp_pll_vco_clk {
>> > + struct clk_hw hw;
>> > + unsigned long rate; /* current vco rate */
>> > + u64 min_rate; /* min vco rate */
>> > + u64 max_rate; /* max vco rate */
>> > + void *priv;
>> > +};
>> > +
>> > +struct dp_pll_db {
>>
>> This struct should probably go into dp_pll_10nm.c. dp_pll_7nm.c, for
>> example, will use slightly different structure.
>
> Note that sboyd has a WIP series to move all of the pll code out to a
> phy driver. If there is work already happening on 7nm support, it
> might be better to go with the separate phy driver approach? I'm
> still a bit undecided about whether to land the dp code initially with
> the pll stuff in drm, and then continue refactoring to move to
> separate phy driver upstream, or to strip out the pll code from the
> beginning. If you/someone is working on 7nm support, then feedback
> about which approach is easier is welcome.
>
>
https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/20200611091919.108018-1-swboyd@chromium.
org/
>
I have a sm8150/sm8250 (7nm) upstream kernel stack with DP enabled,
and
I have done something similar, with the PLL driver in the QMP phy,
although not based on sboyd's series (along with some typec changes to
negotiate the DP alt mode and get HPD events, etc.). I don't think
having PLL in drm/msm makes sense, the drm/msm DP driver shouldn't
need
to be aware of the DP PLL/PHY driver, it only needs to set the
link/pixel clock rates which are in dispcc (and those then have the
PLL
clocks as a parent).
yeah, in the dp case, having phy split out makes a ton of sense.. it
would maybe be a nice cleanup in other cases (dsi, hdmi) but the
combination of usb+dp makes burying this in drm not so great..
It would be good if you could work w/ sboyd on this.. based on what
I've seen on previous gens, it is probably a different phy driver for
7nm vs 10nm, but I think where we want to end up upstream is with phy
split out of drm.
FYI, since it sounds you are considering landing this: it is
completely
broken, for example:
- ioremap()'s to #define'd addresses in the PLL driver
- main DP driver reading/writing to registers in the PHY region, but
getting the base address from devicetree was removed since earlier
revisions, so it just fails completely. Look at usb3_dp_com (for
example), which in dp_catalog_ctrl_usb_reset() would be used to
overwrite registers already being driven by the qmp phy driver - but
now
the usb3_dp_com.base is never initialized.
Yeah, the idea to land dp isn't that it is perfect (or even not
broken), so much as having something upstream gives a common base for
others to work against.. maybe we should make the dp parts 'depends on
STAGING'?
I could keep a separate msm-next-dp branch that I rebase, to give a
common point for folks working dp support for various different gens
to coordinate work on.. that kinda sounds like a bunch of extra work
for me, so might as well land what we have somehow and work together
from there ;-)
But it does sound like you are making the case for including the patch
to drop the pll stuff and use phy framework as part of what initially
goes upstream.
I agree with Rob on landing what we have in DP driver. Of course, by
addressing any outstanding comments. That would help in setting base
functional code for DisplayPort
Bring-up. Other features such as PHY compliance and DP audio are
dependent on these changes.
We don't want to keep PLL code in drm/msm directory and so we have
removed bindings of PLL from DP node. Once base driver is merged, we can
rebase Stephen's QMP PHY changes and merge them. Stephen's changes are
removing PLL code from drm/msm directory already.
Other dependent patches for DisplayPort driver on msm are posted here:
https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/20200810232315.18707-1-khsieh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/20200813015439.4174-2-abhinavk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
BR,
-R
-Jonathan
> BR,
> -R
> _______________________________________________
> Freedreno mailing list
> Freedreno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/freedreno
>
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
