Hi Sam,
On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 09:44:52PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
Hi Laurent.
Third panel driver in line for review. Review comments that are duplicates from the first two will have only a brief remark - if any.
I'll address them the same way. Please consider all unanswered comments below as addressed.
On Sun, Jul 07, 2019 at 09:18:58PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
This panel is used on the SDP3430.
Add a little more context and put it in Kconfig help. Maybe this is the TI board, and maybe it is something else.
Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com
drivers/gpu/drm/panel/Kconfig | 7 + drivers/gpu/drm/panel/Makefile | 1 + .../gpu/drm/panel/panel-sharp-ls037v7dw01.c | 231 ++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 239 insertions(+) create mode 100644 drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-sharp-ls037v7dw01.c
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/Kconfig b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/Kconfig index da613c04b835..04fd152efe4c 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/Kconfig +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/Kconfig @@ -271,6 +271,13 @@ config DRM_PANEL_SHARP_LS043T1LE01 Say Y here if you want to enable support for Sharp LS043T1LE01 qHD (540x960) DSI panel as found on the Qualcomm APQ8074 Dragonboard
+config DRM_PANEL_SHARP_LS037V7DW01
- tristate "Sharp LS037V7DW01 VGA LCD panel"
- depends on GPIOLIB && OF && REGULATOR
- help
Say Y here if you want to enable support for Sharp LS037V7DW01 VGA(480x640) LCD panel.Alphabetical order, so it comes before DRM_PANEL_SHARP_LS043T1LE01
config DRM_PANEL_SITRONIX_ST7701 tristate "Sitronix ST7701 panel driver" depends on OF diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/Makefile b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/Makefile index e81ed1535024..12dcd76eb87c 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/Makefile +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/Makefile @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_SAMSUNG_S6E63M0) += panel-samsung-s6e63m0.o obj-$(CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_SAMSUNG_S6E8AA0) += panel-samsung-s6e8aa0.o obj-$(CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_SEIKO_43WVF1G) += panel-seiko-43wvf1g.o obj-$(CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_SHARP_LQ101R1SX01) += panel-sharp-lq101r1sx01.o +obj-$(CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_SHARP_LS037V7DW01) += panel-sharp-ls037v7dw01.o obj-$(CONFIG_DRM_PANEL_SHARP_LS043T1LE01) += panel-sharp-ls043t1le01.o
And here it is right.
--- /dev/null +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-sharp-ls037v7dw01.c @@ -0,0 +1,231 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 +/*
- Sharp LS037V7DW01 LCD Panel Driver
- Copyright (C) 2019 Texas Instruments Incorporated
- Based on the omapdrm-specific panel-sharp-ls037v7dw01 driver
- Copyright (C) 2013 Texas Instruments Incorporated
- Author: Tomi Valkeinen tomi.valkeinen@ti.com
Add your copyright?
As with the previous patches, the copyright goes to TI.
+struct ls037v7dw01_device {
- struct drm_panel panel;
- struct platform_device *pdev;
- struct regulator *vcc;
The property is named envdd - should they use the same name?
I'll rename that to vdd.
- struct gpio_desc *resb_gpio; /* low = reset active min 20 us */
- struct gpio_desc *ini_gpio; /* high = power on */
- struct gpio_desc *mo_gpio; /* low = 480x640, high = 240x320 */
- struct gpio_desc *lr_gpio; /* high = conventional horizontal scanning */
- struct gpio_desc *ud_gpio; /* high = conventional vertical scanning */
+};
device versus panel, but bikeshedding, so feel free to ignore.
I'll rename it.
+static int ls037v7dw01_disable(struct drm_panel *panel) +{
- struct ls037v7dw01_device *lcd = to_ls037v7dw01_device(panel);
- gpiod_set_value_cansleep(lcd->ini_gpio, 0);
- gpiod_set_value_cansleep(lcd->resb_gpio, 0);
- /* Wait at least 5 vsyncs after disabling the LCD. */
- msleep(100);
- return 0;
+}
+static int ls037v7dw01_unprepare(struct drm_panel *panel) +{
- struct ls037v7dw01_device *lcd = to_ls037v7dw01_device(panel);
- if (lcd->vcc)
regulator_disable(lcd->vcc);Why is the if (lcd-vcc) needed? If I read the probe code correct then we either get a regulator or we error out.
Same goes for all other checks of lcd->vcc
+static const struct drm_display_mode ls037v7dw01_mode = {
- .clock = 19200,
- .hdisplay = 480,
- .hsync_start = 480 + 1,
- .hsync_end = 480 + 1 + 2,
- .htotal = 480 + 1 + 2 + 28,
- .vdisplay = 640,
- .vsync_start = 640 + 1,
- .vsync_end = 640 + 1 + 1,
- .vtotal = 640 + 1 + 1 + 1,
- .vrefresh = 58,
- .type = DRM_MODE_TYPE_DRIVER | DRM_MODE_TYPE_PREFERRED,
- .flags = DRM_MODE_FLAG_NHSYNC | DRM_MODE_FLAG_NVSYNC,
+};
+static int ls037v7dw01_get_modes(struct drm_panel *panel) +{
- struct drm_connector *connector = panel->connector;
- struct drm_display_mode *mode;
- mode = drm_mode_duplicate(panel->drm, &ls037v7dw01_mode);
- if (!mode)
return -ENOMEM;- drm_mode_set_name(mode);
- drm_mode_probed_add(connector, mode);
- connector->display_info.width_mm = 56;
- connector->display_info.height_mm = 75;
- /*
* FIXME: According to the datasheet pixel data is sampled on the* rising edge of the clock, but the code running on the SDP3430* indicates sampling on the negative edge. This should be tested on a* real device.*/- connector->display_info.bus_flags = DRM_BUS_FLAG_DE_HIGH
| DRM_BUS_FLAG_SYNC_SAMPLE_POSEDGE| DRM_BUS_FLAG_PIXDATA_SAMPLE_NEGEDGE;- return 1;
+}
+static const struct drm_panel_funcs ls037v7dw01_funcs = {
- .disable = ls037v7dw01_disable,
- .unprepare = ls037v7dw01_unprepare,
- .prepare = ls037v7dw01_prepare,
- .enable = ls037v7dw01_enable,
- .get_modes = ls037v7dw01_get_modes,
+};
+static int ls037v7dw01_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) +{
- struct ls037v7dw01_device *lcd;
- lcd = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*lcd), GFP_KERNEL);
- if (lcd == NULL)
return -ENOMEM;- platform_set_drvdata(pdev, lcd);
- lcd->pdev = pdev;
- lcd->vcc = devm_regulator_get(&pdev->dev, "envdd");
- if (IS_ERR(lcd->vcc)) {
dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to get regulator\n");return PTR_ERR(lcd->vcc);- }
- lcd->ini_gpio = devm_gpiod_get_index(&pdev->dev, "enable", 0,
GPIOD_OUT_LOW);- if (IS_ERR(lcd->ini_gpio)) {
dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to get enable gpio\n");return PTR_ERR(lcd->ini_gpio);- }
I fail to see why the _index() variant is used here. But then I did not check the binding, so it may originate from that. Same goes for ireset gpio
- lcd->resb_gpio = devm_gpiod_get_index(&pdev->dev, "reset", 0,
GPIOD_OUT_LOW);- if (IS_ERR(lcd->resb_gpio)) {
dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to get reset gpio\n");return PTR_ERR(lcd->resb_gpio);- }
- lcd->mo_gpio = devm_gpiod_get_index(&pdev->dev, "mode", 0,
GPIOD_OUT_LOW);- if (IS_ERR(lcd->mo_gpio)) {
dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to get mode[0] gpio\n");return PTR_ERR(lcd->mo_gpio);- }
- lcd->lr_gpio = devm_gpiod_get_index(&pdev->dev, "mode", 1,
GPIOD_OUT_LOW);- if (IS_ERR(lcd->lr_gpio)) {
dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to get mode[1] gpio\n");return PTR_ERR(lcd->lr_gpio);- }
- lcd->ud_gpio = devm_gpiod_get_index(&pdev->dev, "mode", 2,
GPIOD_OUT_LOW);- if (IS_ERR(lcd->ud_gpio)) {
dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to get mode[2] gpio\n");return PTR_ERR(lcd->ud_gpio);- }
Do we set mo, lr ,ud gpio when we call devm_gpiod_get, or are they unused?
They are set by GPIOD_OUT_LOW.
- drm_panel_init(&lcd->panel);
- lcd->panel.dev = &pdev->dev;
- lcd->panel.funcs = &ls037v7dw01_funcs;
- return drm_panel_add(&lcd->panel);
+}
+static int ls037v7dw01_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) +{
- struct ls037v7dw01_device *lcd = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
- drm_panel_remove(&lcd->panel);
- ls037v7dw01_disable(&lcd->panel);
- ls037v7dw01_unprepare(&lcd->panel);
Use drm_panel_disable(), drm_panel_unprepare()
- return 0;
+}
+static const struct of_device_id ls037v7dw01_of_match[] = {
- { .compatible = "sharp,ls037v7dw01", },
- {},
{ /* sentinel */ },
+};
+MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, ls037v7dw01_of_match);
+static struct platform_driver ls037v7dw01_driver = {
- .probe = ls037v7dw01_probe,
- .remove = __exit_p(ls037v7dw01_remove),
- .driver = {
.name = "panel-sharp-ls037v7dw01",.of_match_table = ls037v7dw01_of_match,- },
+};
+module_platform_driver(ls037v7dw01_driver);
+MODULE_AUTHOR("Tomi Valkeinen tomi.valkeinen@ti.com"); +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Sharp LS037V7DW01 Panel Driver"); +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
"GPL v2"?