On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 8:53 PM Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 05:52:39PM +0800, yang tylor wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 5:02 PM Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 06:16:29PM +0800, yang tylor wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 4:41 PM Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 09:44:21AM +0800, yang tylor wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 11:31 PM Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 05:43:54PM +0800, yang tylor wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 5:22 PM Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 03:56:25PM +0800, yang tylor wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 7:09 PM Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 05:31:29PM +0800, yang tylor wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The behavior of "himax,boot_time_fw_upgrade" seems not stable and
> > > > > > > > > > > > should be removed. "himax,fw_in_flash", I use the kernel config for
> > > > > > > > > > > > user to select.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > That seems like a bad idea, we want to be able to build one kernel that
> > > > > > > > > > > works for all hardware at the same time.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I see, so I should take that back?
> > > > > > > > > > I'll explain more about it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Are there particular ICs where the firmware would always be in flash and
> > > > > > > > > others where it would never be? Or is this a choice made by the board or
> > > > > > > > > system designer?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Most cases it's about the system designer's decision. But some ICs may be forced
> > > > > > > > to use flash because of its architecture(multiple IC inside, need to
> > > > > > > > load firmware to
> > > > > > > > multiple IC's sram by master IC). But if there is no limitation on
> > > > > > > > this part, most system
> > > > > > > > designers will prefer flashless.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Forgive me if I am not understanding correctly, there are some ICs that
> > > > > > > will need to load the firmware from flash and there are some where it
> > > > > > > will be a decision made by the designer of the board. Is the flash part
> > > > > > > of the IC or is it an external flash chip?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Both are possible, it depends on the IC type. For TDDI, the IC is long
> > > > > > and thin, placed on panel PCB, flash will be located at the external
> > > > > > flash chip. For the OLED TP, IC is usually placed at FPC and its flash
> > > > > > is embedded, thus the IC size is large compared to TDDI. But from the
> > > > > > driver's perspective either external flash or embedded flash, the IC
> > > > > > itself will load firmware from flash automatically when reset pin is
> > > > > > released. Only if firmware is loading from the host storage system,
> > > > > > the driver needs to operate the IC in detail.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Since there are ICs that can use the external flash or have it loaded
> > > > > from the host, it sounds like you do need a property to differentiate
> > > > > between those cases.
> > > > Yep.
> > > >
> > > > > Is it sufficient to just set the firmware-name property for these cases?
> > > > > If the property exists, then you know you need to load firmware & what
> > > > > its name is. If it doesn't, then the firmware either isn't needed or
> > > > > will be automatically loaded from the external flash.
> > >
> > > > We have a default prefix firmware name(like himax_xxxx.bin) in the driver code.
> > >
> > > How do you intend generating the name of the firmware file? I assume the
> > > same firmware doesn't work on every IC, so you'll need to pick a
> > > different one depending on the compatible?
> > >
> > If considering a firmware library line-up for all the incoming panels
> > of this driver.
> > We would use PID as part of the file name. Because all the support panels would
> > have a unique PID associated. Which will make the firmware name like
> > himax_xxx_{$PID}.bin. The problem is, we need to know PID before firmware load
> > at no flash condition. Thus PID information is required in dts when
> > no-flash-flag
> > is specified.
>
> Firstly, where does the "xxx" come from?
> And you're making it sound more like having firmware-name is suitable
> for this use case, given you need to determine the name of the file to
> use based on something that is hardware specific but is not
> dynamically detectable.
Current driver patch uses a prefix name "himax_i2chid" which comes
from the previous project
and seems not suitable for this condition, so I use "xxx" and plan to
replace it in the next version.
For finding firmware, I think both solutions are reasonable.
- provide firmware name directly: implies no-flash and use user
specified firmware, no PID info.
- provide no-flash-flag and PID info: loading firmware from organized
names with PID info.
I prefer the 2nd solution, but it needs more properties in dts. 1st
has less properties and more
intuitive.
I don't know which one is more acceptable by the community, as you
know I'm a newbie here.
Thanks,
Tylor
