On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 3:06 AM, Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 05/09/2014 05:05 PM, Ajay kumar wrote:
>> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 5:08 AM, Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 05/08/2014 08:24 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 2:41 AM, Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> On 05/05/2014 09:52 PM, Ajay Kumar wrote:
>>>>>>> This patchset is based on exynos-drm-next-todo branch of Inki Dae's tree at:
>>>>>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/daeinki/drm-exynos.git
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have just put up Rob's and Sean's idea of chaining up the bridges
>>>>>>> in code, and have implemented basic panel controls as a chained bridge.
>>>>>>> This works well with ptn3460 bridge chip on exynos5250-snow board.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Still need to make use of standard list calls and figure out proper way
>>>>>>> of deleting the bridge chain. So, this is just a rough version.
>>>>>> As I understand this patchset tries to solve two things:
>>>>>> 1. Implement panel as drm_bridge, to ease support for hardware chains:
>>>>>> Crtc -> Encoder -> Bridge -> Panel
>>>>>> 2. Add support to drm_bridge chaining, to allow software chains:
>>>>>> drm_crtc -> drm_encoder -> drm_bridge -> drm_bridge,panel
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is done using Russian doll schema, ops from the bridge calls the same
>>>>>> ops from the next bridge and the next bridge ops can do the same.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This schema means that all the bridges including the last one are seen
>>>>>> from the drm core point of view as a one big drm_bridge. Additionally in
>>>>>> this particular case, the first bridge (ptn3460) implements connector
>>>>>> so it is hard to guess what is the location of the 2nd bridge in video
>>>>>> stream chain, sometimes it is after the connector, sometimes before.
>>>>>> All this is quite confusing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But if you look at the bridge from upstream video interface point of
>>>>>> view it is just a panel, edp panel in case of ptn3460, ie ptn3460 on its
>>>>>> video input side acts as a panel. On the output side it expects a panel,
>>>>>> lvds panel in this case.
>>>>> tbh, this is mostly about what we call it. Perhaps "bridge" isn't the
>>>>> best name.. I wouldn't object to changing it.
>>>>>
>>>>> But my thinking was to leave in drm_panel_funcs things that are just
>>>>> needed by the connector (get_modes().. and maybe some day we need
>>>>> detect/etc). Then leave everything else in drm_bridge_funcs. A panel
>>>>> could (if needed) implement both interfaces.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is basically the same as what you are proposing, but without
>>>>> renaming bridge to panel ;-)
>>>> Good to hear that. However there are points which are not clear for me.
>>>> But first lets clarify names, I will use panel and bridge words
>>>> to describe the hardware, and drm_panel, drm_bridge to describe the
>>>> software interfaces.
>>>>
>>>> What bothers me:
>>>> 1. You want to leave connector related callbacks in drm_panel and
>>>> the rest in drm_bridge. In case of ptn3460 it does not work, ptn3460
>>>> must implement connector internally because of this limitation. I guess
>>>> it is quite typical bridge. This problem does not exists in case
>>>> of using drm_panel for ptn3460.
>>>>
>>>> 2. drm_bridge is attached to the encoder, this and the callback order
>>>> suggests the video data flow should be as below:
>>>> drm_crtc -> drm_encoder [-> drm_bridge] -> drm_connector [-> drm_panel]
>>>>
>>>> ptn3460 implements drm_bridge and drm_connector so it suggests its
>>>> drm_bridge should be the last one, so there should be no place to add
>>>> lvds panel implemented as a drm_bridge after it, as it is done in this
>>>> patchset.
>>>>
>>>> Additionally it clearly shows that there should be two categories of
>>>> drm_bridges - non-terminal and terminal.
>>>>
>>>> 3. drm_dev uses all-or-nothing approach, ie. it will start only when all
>>>> its components are up. It simplifies synchronization but is quite
>>>> fragile - the whole drm will be down due to error in some of its components.
>>>> For this reason I prefer drm_panel as it is not real drm component
>>>> it can be attached/detached to/from drm_connector anytime. I am not
>>>> really sure but drm_bridge does not allow for that.
>>> So I do think we need to stick to this all-or-nothing approach for
>>> anything that is visible to userspace
>>> (drm_{plane,crtc,encoder,connector}). We don't currently have a way
>>> to "hotplug" those so I don't see a real smooth upgrade path to add
>>> that in a backwards compatible way that won't cause problems with old
>>> userspace.
>>>
>>> But, that said, we have more flexibility with things not visible to
>>> userspace (drm_{panel,bridge}). I'm not sure how much we want to
>>> allow things to be completely dynamic (we already have some hard
>>> enough locking fun). But proposals/rfcs/etc welcome.
>>>
>>> I guess I'm not completely familiar w/ ptn3460, but the fact that it
>>> needs to implement drm_connector makes me a bit suspicious. Seems
>>> like a symptom of missing things in drm_panel_funcs. It would be
>>> better to always create the connector statically, and just have
>>> _detect() -> disconnected if panel==NULL.
>
> ptn3460 has been implemented using drm_bridge and drm_connector, not by
> me, to be clear :)
Right, that was me.
> And to make it more clear from what I see ptn3460 exposes following ops:
> - pre_enable (via drm_bridge).
> - disable (via drm_bridge),
> - get_modes (via drm_connector).
> Other ops are exposed just to fulfill requirements of drm frameworks, I
> guess.
>
Also detect().
>
>> This is something which only Sean can answer!
>> I guess he implemented ptn3460 as connector thinking that bridge would
>> be the last
>> entity in the video pipeline. If that's a real problem, we can still
>> move out the
>> connector part.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ajay
>
> The question is how it can be implemented using only drm_bridge.
>
It was originally implemented this way. Check out the original
drm_bridge patch and discussion here:
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2013-August/043237.html.
The tl;dr is: If you don't implement the connector as part of the
bridge, you need to hack detect_connection() in drm_crtc_helper to
either go to the existing connector (which, btw will be the incorrect
connector type), or the bridge if there's one connected. That, or the
existing connector needs to know about the bridge's existence and call
into it for detect() and get_modes(). In the second case, the existing
connector will probably also be the wrong connector type.
>>>> Real life example to show importance of it: I have a phone with MIPI-DSI
>>>> panel and HDMI. Due to initialization issues HDMI bridge driver
>>>> sometimes fails during probe and the drmdev do not start. Of course this
>>>> is development stage so I have serial console I can diagnose the
>>>> problem, disable HDMI, fix the problem, etc...
>>>> But what happens in case of end-user. He will see black screen - bricked
>>>> phone. In case the bridge will be implemented using drm_panel
>>>> he will have working phone with broken HDMI, much better.
>>> well, tbh, I don't think an end-user will see the device if hdmi were broken ;-)
>
> It can break also during phone utilization.
>
>>>
>>> I suppose if bridge/panel where loaded dynamically (or at least after
>>> drm device and drm_{connector,encoder,etc} are created, it would help
>>> a bit here. I'd kinda hope that isn't the only benefit/reason to make
>>> things more dynamic. Especially if we allow bridges/panels to be
>>> unloaded.. (just loading them dynamically doesn't seem as scary from
>>> locking perspective)
>>>
>>>> 4. And the last thing, it is more about the concept/design. drm_bridge,
>>>> drm_hw_block suggests that those interfaces describes the whole device:
>>>> bridge, panel, whatever.
>>> hmm, I don't think this is the case. I can easily see things like:
>>>
>>> struct foo_panel {
>>> struct drm_panel base;
>>> struct drm_bridge bridge;
>>> ...
>>> }
>>>
>>> where a panel implementation implements both panel and bridge. In
>>> fact that is kinda what I was encouraging.
>
> I guess it can work, but I see it sub-optimal. In general, looking on
> the hardware
> the same video data goes to the panel and to the bridge (if they are of
> the same type of course),
> I do not know why it couldn't be mapped to software interfaces. For
> example drm_sink, as I described
> previously (now it is cited below).
>
> Regards
> Andrzej
>
>>>
>>> BR,
>>> -R
>>>
>>>> In my approach I have an interface
>>>> to describe only one video input port of the device. And drm_panel is
>>>> in fact misleading name, drm_sink may be better. So real panel
>>>> would implement drm_sink interface. Bridge would implement drm_sink
>>>> interface and it will request other drm_sink interface, to interact with
>>>> the panel which is after it.
>>>> This approach seems to me more flexible. Beside things I have described
>>>> above it will allow to implement also more complicated devices, dsi
>>>> hubs, video mixers, etc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Andrzej
>>>>
>>>>> BR,
>>>>> -R
>>>>>
>>>>>> So why not implement ptn3460 bridge as drm_panel which internally uses
>>>>>> another drm_panel. With this approach everything fits much better.
>>>>>> You do not need those (pre|post)_(enable|disable) calls, you do not need
>>>>>> to implement connector in the bridge and you have a driver following
>>>>>> linux driver model. And no single bit changed in drm core.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have implemented this way DSI/LVDS bridge, it was sent as RFC [1][2].
>>>>>> It was not accepted as Inki preferred drm_bridge but as I see the
>>>>>> problems with drm_bridges I have decide to attract attention to much
>>>>>> more cleaner solution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1]: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.devicetree/61559
>>>>>> [2]: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.samsung-soc/27044
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> Andrzej
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ajay Kumar (3):
>>>>>>> [RFC V2 1/3] drm: implement chaining of drm bridges
>>>>>>> [RFC V2 2/3] drm/bridge: add a dummy panel driver to support lvds bridges
>>>>>>> [RFC V2 3/3] drm/bridge: ptn3460: support bridge chaining
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> .../bindings/drm/bridge/bridge_panel.txt | 45 ++++
>>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/Kconfig | 6 +
>>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/Makefile | 1 +
>>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/bridge_panel.c | 240 +++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ptn3460.c | 21 +-
>>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c | 13 +-
>>>>>>> include/drm/bridge/bridge_panel.h | 37 ++++
>>>>>>> include/drm/drm_crtc.h | 2 +
>>>>>>> 8 files changed, 360 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/drm/bridge/bridge_panel.txt
>>>>>>> create mode 100644 drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/bridge_panel.c
>>>>>>> create mode 100644 include/drm/bridge/bridge_panel.h
>>>>>>>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
