All the panel driver check the fact that their prepare/unprepare call was already called. It's not an ideal solution but fix for now the problem on ili9881c
[ 9862.283296] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [ 9862.288490] unbalanced disables for vcc3v3_lcd [ 9862.293555] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1 at drivers/regulator/core.c:2851 _regulator_disable+0xd4/0x190
from:
[ 9862.038619] drm_panel_unprepare+0x2c/0x4c [ 9862.043212] panel_bridge_post_disable+0x18/0x24 [ 9862.048390] dw_mipi_dsi_bridge_post_disable+0x3c/0xf0 [ 9862.054153] drm_atomic_bridge_chain_post_disable+0x8c/0xd0
and:
[ 9862.183103] drm_panel_unprepare+0x2c/0x4c [ 9862.187695] panel_bridge_post_disable+0x18/0x24 [ 9862.192872] drm_atomic_bridge_chain_post_disable+0x8c/0xd0 [ 9862.199117] disable_outputs+0x120/0x31c
Signed-off-by: Michael Trimarchi michael@amarulasolutions.com --- drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-ilitek-ili9881c.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-ilitek-ili9881c.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-ilitek-ili9881c.c index 103a16018975..f75eecb0e65c 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-ilitek-ili9881c.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-ilitek-ili9881c.c @@ -52,6 +52,8 @@ struct ili9881c {
struct regulator *power; struct gpio_desc *reset; + + bool prepared; };
#define ILI9881C_SWITCH_PAGE_INSTR(_page) \ @@ -707,6 +709,10 @@ static int ili9881c_prepare(struct drm_panel *panel) unsigned int i; int ret;
+ /* Preparing when already prepared is a no-op */ + if (ctx->prepared) + return 0; + /* Power the panel */ ret = regulator_enable(ctx->power); if (ret) @@ -745,6 +751,8 @@ static int ili9881c_prepare(struct drm_panel *panel) if (ret) return ret;
+ ctx->prepared = true; + return 0; }
@@ -770,10 +778,16 @@ static int ili9881c_unprepare(struct drm_panel *panel) { struct ili9881c *ctx = panel_to_ili9881c(panel);
+ /* Unpreparing when already unprepared is a no-op */ + if (!ctx->prepared) + return 0; + mipi_dsi_dcs_enter_sleep_mode(ctx->dsi); regulator_disable(ctx->power); gpiod_set_value(ctx->reset, 1);
+ ctx->prepared = false; + return 0; }
Hi all
On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 4:58 PM Michael Trimarchi michael@amarulasolutions.com wrote:
All the panel driver check the fact that their prepare/unprepare call was already called. It's not an ideal solution but fix for now the problem on ili9881c
[ 9862.283296] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [ 9862.288490] unbalanced disables for vcc3v3_lcd [ 9862.293555] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1 at drivers/regulator/core.c:2851 _regulator_disable+0xd4/0x190
from:
[ 9862.038619] drm_panel_unprepare+0x2c/0x4c [ 9862.043212] panel_bridge_post_disable+0x18/0x24 [ 9862.048390] dw_mipi_dsi_bridge_post_disable+0x3c/0xf0 [ 9862.054153] drm_atomic_bridge_chain_post_disable+0x8c/0xd0
and:
[ 9862.183103] drm_panel_unprepare+0x2c/0x4c [ 9862.187695] panel_bridge_post_disable+0x18/0x24 [ 9862.192872] drm_atomic_bridge_chain_post_disable+0x8c/0xd0 [ 9862.199117] disable_outputs+0x120/0x31c
Signed-off-by: Michael Trimarchi michael@amarulasolutions.com
drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-ilitek-ili9881c.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-ilitek-ili9881c.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-ilitek-ili9881c.c index 103a16018975..f75eecb0e65c 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-ilitek-ili9881c.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-ilitek-ili9881c.c @@ -52,6 +52,8 @@ struct ili9881c {
struct regulator *power; struct gpio_desc *reset;
bool prepared;};
I found that this can be a general problem. Should not mandatory to track panel status
DRM_PANEL_PREPARED DRM_PANEL_ENABLED
Michael
#define ILI9881C_SWITCH_PAGE_INSTR(_page) \ @@ -707,6 +709,10 @@ static int ili9881c_prepare(struct drm_panel *panel) unsigned int i; int ret;
/* Preparing when already prepared is a no-op */if (ctx->prepared)return 0;/* Power the panel */ ret = regulator_enable(ctx->power); if (ret)@@ -745,6 +751,8 @@ static int ili9881c_prepare(struct drm_panel *panel) if (ret) return ret;
ctx->prepared = true;return 0;}
@@ -770,10 +778,16 @@ static int ili9881c_unprepare(struct drm_panel *panel) { struct ili9881c *ctx = panel_to_ili9881c(panel);
/* Unpreparing when already unprepared is a no-op */if (!ctx->prepared)return 0;mipi_dsi_dcs_enter_sleep_mode(ctx->dsi); regulator_disable(ctx->power); gpiod_set_value(ctx->reset, 1);ctx->prepared = false;return 0;}
-- 2.25.1
Hi Michael
On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 at 16:58, Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi michael@amarulasolutions.com wrote:
Hi all
On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 4:58 PM Michael Trimarchi michael@amarulasolutions.com wrote:
All the panel driver check the fact that their prepare/unprepare call was already called. It's not an ideal solution but fix for now the problem on ili9881c
[ 9862.283296] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [ 9862.288490] unbalanced disables for vcc3v3_lcd [ 9862.293555] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1 at drivers/regulator/core.c:2851 _regulator_disable+0xd4/0x190
from:
[ 9862.038619] drm_panel_unprepare+0x2c/0x4c [ 9862.043212] panel_bridge_post_disable+0x18/0x24 [ 9862.048390] dw_mipi_dsi_bridge_post_disable+0x3c/0xf0 [ 9862.054153] drm_atomic_bridge_chain_post_disable+0x8c/0xd0
and:
[ 9862.183103] drm_panel_unprepare+0x2c/0x4c [ 9862.187695] panel_bridge_post_disable+0x18/0x24 [ 9862.192872] drm_atomic_bridge_chain_post_disable+0x8c/0xd0 [ 9862.199117] disable_outputs+0x120/0x31c
This is down to the dw-mipi-dsi driver calling the post_disable hook explicitly at [1], but then also allowing the framework to call it. The explicit call is down to limitations in the DSI support, so we can't control the DSI host state to a fine enough degree (an ongoing discussion [2] [3]). There shouldn't be a need to handle mismatched calling in individual panel drivers.
Dave
[1] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/synopsy... [2] https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2021-November/332060.html [3] https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2021-December/334007.html
Signed-off-by: Michael Trimarchi michael@amarulasolutions.com
drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-ilitek-ili9881c.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-ilitek-ili9881c.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-ilitek-ili9881c.c index 103a16018975..f75eecb0e65c 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-ilitek-ili9881c.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-ilitek-ili9881c.c @@ -52,6 +52,8 @@ struct ili9881c {
struct regulator *power; struct gpio_desc *reset;
bool prepared;};
I found that this can be a general problem. Should not mandatory to track panel status
DRM_PANEL_PREPARED DRM_PANEL_ENABLED
Michael
#define ILI9881C_SWITCH_PAGE_INSTR(_page) \ @@ -707,6 +709,10 @@ static int ili9881c_prepare(struct drm_panel *panel) unsigned int i; int ret;
/* Preparing when already prepared is a no-op */if (ctx->prepared)return 0;/* Power the panel */ ret = regulator_enable(ctx->power); if (ret)@@ -745,6 +751,8 @@ static int ili9881c_prepare(struct drm_panel *panel) if (ret) return ret;
ctx->prepared = true;return 0;}
@@ -770,10 +778,16 @@ static int ili9881c_unprepare(struct drm_panel *panel) { struct ili9881c *ctx = panel_to_ili9881c(panel);
/* Unpreparing when already unprepared is a no-op */if (!ctx->prepared)return 0;mipi_dsi_dcs_enter_sleep_mode(ctx->dsi); regulator_disable(ctx->power); gpiod_set_value(ctx->reset, 1);ctx->prepared = false;return 0;}
-- 2.25.1
-- Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi Co-Founder & Chief Executive Officer M. +39 347 913 2170 michael@amarulasolutions.com __________________________________
Amarula Solutions BV Joop Geesinkweg 125, 1114 AB, Amsterdam, NL T. +31 (0)85 111 9172 info@amarulasolutions.com www.amarulasolutions.com
Hi Dave
On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 6:58 PM Dave Stevenson dave.stevenson@raspberrypi.com wrote:
Hi Michael
On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 at 16:58, Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi michael@amarulasolutions.com wrote:
Hi all
On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 4:58 PM Michael Trimarchi michael@amarulasolutions.com wrote:
All the panel driver check the fact that their prepare/unprepare call was already called. It's not an ideal solution but fix for now the problem on ili9881c
[ 9862.283296] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [ 9862.288490] unbalanced disables for vcc3v3_lcd [ 9862.293555] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1 at drivers/regulator/core.c:2851 _regulator_disable+0xd4/0x190
from:
[ 9862.038619] drm_panel_unprepare+0x2c/0x4c [ 9862.043212] panel_bridge_post_disable+0x18/0x24 [ 9862.048390] dw_mipi_dsi_bridge_post_disable+0x3c/0xf0 [ 9862.054153] drm_atomic_bridge_chain_post_disable+0x8c/0xd0
and:
[ 9862.183103] drm_panel_unprepare+0x2c/0x4c [ 9862.187695] panel_bridge_post_disable+0x18/0x24 [ 9862.192872] drm_atomic_bridge_chain_post_disable+0x8c/0xd0 [ 9862.199117] disable_outputs+0x120/0x31c
This is down to the dw-mipi-dsi driver calling the post_disable hook explicitly at [1], but then also allowing the framework to call it. The explicit call is down to limitations in the DSI support, so we can't control the DSI host state to a fine enough degree (an ongoing discussion [2] [3]). There shouldn't be a need to handle mismatched calling in individual panel drivers.
Dave
[1] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/synopsy... [2] https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2021-November/332060.html [3] https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2021-December/334007.html
I'm in the second case. I need to enable HS mode after the panel is initialized. Time to time I have timeout on dsi command or I have wrong panel initialization. So I explicit call from the bridge but I understand that is not correct in the design point of view.
So this patch can not be queued because it's a known problem that people are discussing
Michael
Signed-off-by: Michael Trimarchi michael@amarulasolutions.com
drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-ilitek-ili9881c.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-ilitek-ili9881c.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-ilitek-ili9881c.c index 103a16018975..f75eecb0e65c 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-ilitek-ili9881c.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-ilitek-ili9881c.c @@ -52,6 +52,8 @@ struct ili9881c {
struct regulator *power; struct gpio_desc *reset;
bool prepared;};
I found that this can be a general problem. Should not mandatory to track panel status
DRM_PANEL_PREPARED DRM_PANEL_ENABLED
Michael
#define ILI9881C_SWITCH_PAGE_INSTR(_page) \ @@ -707,6 +709,10 @@ static int ili9881c_prepare(struct drm_panel *panel) unsigned int i; int ret;
/* Preparing when already prepared is a no-op */if (ctx->prepared)return 0;/* Power the panel */ ret = regulator_enable(ctx->power); if (ret)@@ -745,6 +751,8 @@ static int ili9881c_prepare(struct drm_panel *panel) if (ret) return ret;
ctx->prepared = true;return 0;}
@@ -770,10 +778,16 @@ static int ili9881c_unprepare(struct drm_panel *panel) { struct ili9881c *ctx = panel_to_ili9881c(panel);
/* Unpreparing when already unprepared is a no-op */if (!ctx->prepared)return 0;mipi_dsi_dcs_enter_sleep_mode(ctx->dsi); regulator_disable(ctx->power); gpiod_set_value(ctx->reset, 1);ctx->prepared = false;return 0;}
-- 2.25.1
-- Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi Co-Founder & Chief Executive Officer M. +39 347 913 2170 michael@amarulasolutions.com __________________________________
Amarula Solutions BV Joop Geesinkweg 125, 1114 AB, Amsterdam, NL T. +31 (0)85 111 9172 info@amarulasolutions.com www.amarulasolutions.com
Hi Dave
some questions below
On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 7:10 PM Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi michael@amarulasolutions.com wrote:
Hi Dave
On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 6:58 PM Dave Stevenson dave.stevenson@raspberrypi.com wrote:
Hi Michael
On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 at 16:58, Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi michael@amarulasolutions.com wrote:
Hi all
On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 4:58 PM Michael Trimarchi michael@amarulasolutions.com wrote:
All the panel driver check the fact that their prepare/unprepare call was already called. It's not an ideal solution but fix for now the problem on ili9881c
[ 9862.283296] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [ 9862.288490] unbalanced disables for vcc3v3_lcd [ 9862.293555] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1 at drivers/regulator/core.c:2851 _regulator_disable+0xd4/0x190
from:
[ 9862.038619] drm_panel_unprepare+0x2c/0x4c [ 9862.043212] panel_bridge_post_disable+0x18/0x24 [ 9862.048390] dw_mipi_dsi_bridge_post_disable+0x3c/0xf0 [ 9862.054153] drm_atomic_bridge_chain_post_disable+0x8c/0xd0
and:
[ 9862.183103] drm_panel_unprepare+0x2c/0x4c [ 9862.187695] panel_bridge_post_disable+0x18/0x24 [ 9862.192872] drm_atomic_bridge_chain_post_disable+0x8c/0xd0 [ 9862.199117] disable_outputs+0x120/0x31c
This is down to the dw-mipi-dsi driver calling the post_disable hook explicitly at [1], but then also allowing the framework to call it. The explicit call is down to limitations in the DSI support, so we can't control the DSI host state to a fine enough degree (an ongoing discussion [2] [3]). There shouldn't be a need to handle mismatched calling in individual panel drivers.
Dave
[1] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/synopsy... [2] https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2021-November/332060.html [3] https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2021-December/334007.html
I'm in the second case. I need to enable HS mode after the panel is initialized. Time to time I have timeout on dsi command or I have wrong panel initialization. So I explicit call from the bridge but I understand that is not correct in the design point of view.
So this patch can not be queued because it's a known problem that people are discussing
Author: Michael Trimarchi michael@amarulasolutions.com Date: Thu Dec 9 15:45:48 2021 +0100
drm: bridge: samsung-dsim: Enable panel/bridge before exist from standby
We need to exist from standby as last operation to have a proper video working. This code implement the same code was before the bridge migration
Signed-off-by: Michael Trimarchi michael@amarulasolutions.com
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/samsung-dsim.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/samsung-dsim.c index 654851edbd9b..21265ae80022 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/samsung-dsim.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/samsung-dsim.c @@ -1838,6 +1838,7 @@ static void samsung_dsim_atomic_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge, struct drm_bridge_state *old_bridge_state) { struct samsung_dsim *dsi = bridge_to_dsi(bridge); + struct drm_atomic_state old_state; int ret;
if (dsi->state & DSIM_STATE_ENABLED) @@ -1859,6 +1860,9 @@ static void samsung_dsim_atomic_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge, }
samsung_dsim_set_display_mode(dsi); + + drm_atomic_bridge_chain_enable(dsi->out_bridge, &old_state); + samsung_dsim_set_display_enable(dsi, true);
dsi->state |= DSIM_STATE_VIDOUT_AVAILABLE;
Right now I'm doing this to enable the change. I must change the panel to avoid double enabled
I have some questions:
- the chain is an element (bridge/panel) linked together via some connector (I hope I understand) when I enable a bridge chain, all the elements should move from some status to another. If we mark them already this should not avoid that one element can be enabled two times? An element that sources two other elements should for instance receive the enable from two times before switching on.
Michael
Michael
Signed-off-by: Michael Trimarchi michael@amarulasolutions.com
drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-ilitek-ili9881c.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-ilitek-ili9881c.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-ilitek-ili9881c.c index 103a16018975..f75eecb0e65c 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-ilitek-ili9881c.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-ilitek-ili9881c.c @@ -52,6 +52,8 @@ struct ili9881c {
struct regulator *power; struct gpio_desc *reset;
bool prepared;};
I found that this can be a general problem. Should not mandatory to track panel status
DRM_PANEL_PREPARED DRM_PANEL_ENABLED
Michael
#define ILI9881C_SWITCH_PAGE_INSTR(_page) \ @@ -707,6 +709,10 @@ static int ili9881c_prepare(struct drm_panel *panel) unsigned int i; int ret;
/* Preparing when already prepared is a no-op */if (ctx->prepared)return 0;/* Power the panel */ ret = regulator_enable(ctx->power); if (ret)@@ -745,6 +751,8 @@ static int ili9881c_prepare(struct drm_panel *panel) if (ret) return ret;
ctx->prepared = true;return 0;}
@@ -770,10 +778,16 @@ static int ili9881c_unprepare(struct drm_panel *panel) { struct ili9881c *ctx = panel_to_ili9881c(panel);
/* Unpreparing when already unprepared is a no-op */if (!ctx->prepared)return 0;mipi_dsi_dcs_enter_sleep_mode(ctx->dsi); regulator_disable(ctx->power); gpiod_set_value(ctx->reset, 1);ctx->prepared = false;return 0;}
-- 2.25.1
-- Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi Co-Founder & Chief Executive Officer M. +39 347 913 2170 michael@amarulasolutions.com __________________________________
Amarula Solutions BV Joop Geesinkweg 125, 1114 AB, Amsterdam, NL T. +31 (0)85 111 9172 info@amarulasolutions.com www.amarulasolutions.com
-- Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi Co-Founder & Chief Executive Officer M. +39 347 913 2170 michael@amarulasolutions.com __________________________________
Amarula Solutions BV Joop Geesinkweg 125, 1114 AB, Amsterdam, NL T. +31 (0)85 111 9172 info@amarulasolutions.com www.amarulasolutions.com
Hi Michael
On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 at 09:05, Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi michael@amarulasolutions.com wrote:
Hi Dave
some questions below
On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 7:10 PM Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi michael@amarulasolutions.com wrote:
Hi Dave
On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 6:58 PM Dave Stevenson dave.stevenson@raspberrypi.com wrote:
Hi Michael
On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 at 16:58, Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi michael@amarulasolutions.com wrote:
Hi all
On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 4:58 PM Michael Trimarchi michael@amarulasolutions.com wrote:
All the panel driver check the fact that their prepare/unprepare call was already called. It's not an ideal solution but fix for now the problem on ili9881c
[ 9862.283296] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [ 9862.288490] unbalanced disables for vcc3v3_lcd [ 9862.293555] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1 at drivers/regulator/core.c:2851 _regulator_disable+0xd4/0x190
from:
[ 9862.038619] drm_panel_unprepare+0x2c/0x4c [ 9862.043212] panel_bridge_post_disable+0x18/0x24 [ 9862.048390] dw_mipi_dsi_bridge_post_disable+0x3c/0xf0 [ 9862.054153] drm_atomic_bridge_chain_post_disable+0x8c/0xd0
and:
[ 9862.183103] drm_panel_unprepare+0x2c/0x4c [ 9862.187695] panel_bridge_post_disable+0x18/0x24 [ 9862.192872] drm_atomic_bridge_chain_post_disable+0x8c/0xd0 [ 9862.199117] disable_outputs+0x120/0x31c
This is down to the dw-mipi-dsi driver calling the post_disable hook explicitly at [1], but then also allowing the framework to call it. The explicit call is down to limitations in the DSI support, so we can't control the DSI host state to a fine enough degree (an ongoing discussion [2] [3]). There shouldn't be a need to handle mismatched calling in individual panel drivers.
Dave
[1] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/synopsy... [2] https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2021-November/332060.html [3] https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2021-December/334007.html
I'm in the second case. I need to enable HS mode after the panel is initialized. Time to time I have timeout on dsi command or I have wrong panel initialization. So I explicit call from the bridge but I understand that is not correct in the design point of view.
So this patch can not be queued because it's a known problem that people are discussing
Author: Michael Trimarchi michael@amarulasolutions.com Date: Thu Dec 9 15:45:48 2021 +0100
drm: bridge: samsung-dsim: Enable panel/bridge before exist from standby We need to exist from standby as last operation to have a proper video working. This code implement the same code was before the bridge migration Signed-off-by: Michael Trimarchi <michael@amarulasolutions.com>diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/samsung-dsim.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/samsung-dsim.c index 654851edbd9b..21265ae80022 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/samsung-dsim.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/samsung-dsim.c @@ -1838,6 +1838,7 @@ static void samsung_dsim_atomic_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge, struct drm_bridge_state *old_bridge_state) { struct samsung_dsim *dsi = bridge_to_dsi(bridge);
struct drm_atomic_state old_state; int ret; if (dsi->state & DSIM_STATE_ENABLED)@@ -1859,6 +1860,9 @@ static void samsung_dsim_atomic_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge, }
samsung_dsim_set_display_mode(dsi);
drm_atomic_bridge_chain_enable(dsi->out_bridge, &old_state);
Calling this is contrary to the documentation [1]
"Note: the bridge passed should be the one closest to the encoder"
You're passing in a bridge that is half way down the chain, from a bridge atomic_enable that is already being called by drm_atomic_bridge_chain_enable
[1] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c#...
samsung_dsim_set_display_enable(dsi, true); dsi->state |= DSIM_STATE_VIDOUT_AVAILABLE;Right now I'm doing this to enable the change. I must change the panel to avoid double enabled
I have some questions:
- the chain is an element (bridge/panel) linked together via some
connector (I hope I understand) when I enable a bridge chain, all the elements should move from some status to another. If we mark them already this should not avoid that one element can be enabled two times? An element that sources two other elements should for instance receive the enable from two times before switching on.
I don't claim to be an expert, just that I've been trying to get DSI working on a number of devices.
The bridge chain is meant to be managed by the framework via drm_atomic_helper_commit_modeset_enables and drm_atomic_helper_commit_modeset_disables calling the drm_atomic_bridge_chain_* functions.
As documented, the framework calls the bridge pre_enable hooks following the chain from connector towards the encoder, enables the encoder, and then calls the enable hooks from bridge closest to the encoder towards the connector. A similar approach applies for bridge disable hooks, disable the encoder, and then bridge post_disable hooks. There should be no need to make any calls outside of that framework. Doing so is what is causing these problems.
As Laurent summarised it in [2]: "I can't agree more with Dave about the need for documentation, DSI drivers (both on the TX and RX side) are very creative these days, causing lots of interoperability issues. This wild west situation really needs some policing."
I acknowledge that there is a failing in the framework for DSI, and I've previously raised the question of how to best address this, but all suggestions have largely been shot down with no alternatives suggested. I won't say that this patch can't be merged, but merging it and ignoring the cause is admitting defeat.
Dave
[2] https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2021-December/334007.html
Michael
Michael
Signed-off-by: Michael Trimarchi michael@amarulasolutions.com
drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-ilitek-ili9881c.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-ilitek-ili9881c.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-ilitek-ili9881c.c index 103a16018975..f75eecb0e65c 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-ilitek-ili9881c.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-ilitek-ili9881c.c @@ -52,6 +52,8 @@ struct ili9881c {
struct regulator *power; struct gpio_desc *reset;
bool prepared;};
I found that this can be a general problem. Should not mandatory to track panel status
DRM_PANEL_PREPARED DRM_PANEL_ENABLED
Michael
#define ILI9881C_SWITCH_PAGE_INSTR(_page) \ @@ -707,6 +709,10 @@ static int ili9881c_prepare(struct drm_panel *panel) unsigned int i; int ret;
/* Preparing when already prepared is a no-op */if (ctx->prepared)return 0;/* Power the panel */ ret = regulator_enable(ctx->power); if (ret)@@ -745,6 +751,8 @@ static int ili9881c_prepare(struct drm_panel *panel) if (ret) return ret;
ctx->prepared = true;return 0;}
@@ -770,10 +778,16 @@ static int ili9881c_unprepare(struct drm_panel *panel) { struct ili9881c *ctx = panel_to_ili9881c(panel);
/* Unpreparing when already unprepared is a no-op */if (!ctx->prepared)return 0;mipi_dsi_dcs_enter_sleep_mode(ctx->dsi); regulator_disable(ctx->power); gpiod_set_value(ctx->reset, 1);ctx->prepared = false;return 0;}
-- 2.25.1
-- Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi Co-Founder & Chief Executive Officer M. +39 347 913 2170 michael@amarulasolutions.com __________________________________
Amarula Solutions BV Joop Geesinkweg 125, 1114 AB, Amsterdam, NL T. +31 (0)85 111 9172 info@amarulasolutions.com www.amarulasolutions.com
-- Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi Co-Founder & Chief Executive Officer M. +39 347 913 2170 michael@amarulasolutions.com __________________________________
Amarula Solutions BV Joop Geesinkweg 125, 1114 AB, Amsterdam, NL T. +31 (0)85 111 9172 info@amarulasolutions.com www.amarulasolutions.com
-- Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi Co-Founder & Chief Executive Officer M. +39 347 913 2170 michael@amarulasolutions.com __________________________________
Amarula Solutions BV Joop Geesinkweg 125, 1114 AB, Amsterdam, NL T. +31 (0)85 111 9172 info@amarulasolutions.com www.amarulasolutions.com
Hi
On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 4:48 PM Dave Stevenson dave.stevenson@raspberrypi.com wrote:
Hi Michael
On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 at 09:05, Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi michael@amarulasolutions.com wrote:
Hi Dave
some questions below
On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 7:10 PM Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi michael@amarulasolutions.com wrote:
Hi Dave
On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 6:58 PM Dave Stevenson dave.stevenson@raspberrypi.com wrote:
Hi Michael
On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 at 16:58, Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi michael@amarulasolutions.com wrote:
Hi all
On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 4:58 PM Michael Trimarchi michael@amarulasolutions.com wrote:
All the panel driver check the fact that their prepare/unprepare call was already called. It's not an ideal solution but fix for now the problem on ili9881c
[ 9862.283296] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [ 9862.288490] unbalanced disables for vcc3v3_lcd [ 9862.293555] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1 at drivers/regulator/core.c:2851 _regulator_disable+0xd4/0x190
from:
[ 9862.038619] drm_panel_unprepare+0x2c/0x4c [ 9862.043212] panel_bridge_post_disable+0x18/0x24 [ 9862.048390] dw_mipi_dsi_bridge_post_disable+0x3c/0xf0 [ 9862.054153] drm_atomic_bridge_chain_post_disable+0x8c/0xd0
and:
[ 9862.183103] drm_panel_unprepare+0x2c/0x4c [ 9862.187695] panel_bridge_post_disable+0x18/0x24 [ 9862.192872] drm_atomic_bridge_chain_post_disable+0x8c/0xd0 [ 9862.199117] disable_outputs+0x120/0x31c
This is down to the dw-mipi-dsi driver calling the post_disable hook explicitly at [1], but then also allowing the framework to call it. The explicit call is down to limitations in the DSI support, so we can't control the DSI host state to a fine enough degree (an ongoing discussion [2] [3]). There shouldn't be a need to handle mismatched calling in individual panel drivers.
Dave
[1] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/synopsy... [2] https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2021-November/332060.html [3] https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2021-December/334007.html
I'm in the second case. I need to enable HS mode after the panel is initialized. Time to time I have timeout on dsi command or I have wrong panel initialization. So I explicit call from the bridge but I understand that is not correct in the design point of view.
So this patch can not be queued because it's a known problem that people are discussing
Author: Michael Trimarchi michael@amarulasolutions.com Date: Thu Dec 9 15:45:48 2021 +0100
drm: bridge: samsung-dsim: Enable panel/bridge before exist from standby We need to exist from standby as last operation to have a proper video working. This code implement the same code was before the bridge migration Signed-off-by: Michael Trimarchi <michael@amarulasolutions.com>diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/samsung-dsim.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/samsung-dsim.c index 654851edbd9b..21265ae80022 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/samsung-dsim.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/samsung-dsim.c @@ -1838,6 +1838,7 @@ static void samsung_dsim_atomic_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge, struct drm_bridge_state *old_bridge_state) { struct samsung_dsim *dsi = bridge_to_dsi(bridge);
struct drm_atomic_state old_state; int ret; if (dsi->state & DSIM_STATE_ENABLED)@@ -1859,6 +1860,9 @@ static void samsung_dsim_atomic_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge, }
samsung_dsim_set_display_mode(dsi);
drm_atomic_bridge_chain_enable(dsi->out_bridge, &old_state);Calling this is contrary to the documentation [1]
"Note: the bridge passed should be the one closest to the encoder"
You're passing in a bridge that is half way down the chain, from a bridge atomic_enable that is already being called by drm_atomic_bridge_chain_enable
[1] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c#...
samsung_dsim_set_display_enable(dsi, true); dsi->state |= DSIM_STATE_VIDOUT_AVAILABLE;Right now I'm doing this to enable the change. I must change the panel to avoid double enabled
I have some questions:
- the chain is an element (bridge/panel) linked together via some
connector (I hope I understand) when I enable a bridge chain, all the elements should move from some status to another. If we mark them already this should not avoid that one element can be enabled two times? An element that sources two other elements should for instance receive the enable from two times before switching on.
I don't claim to be an expert, just that I've been trying to get DSI working on a number of devices.
The bridge chain is meant to be managed by the framework via drm_atomic_helper_commit_modeset_enables and drm_atomic_helper_commit_modeset_disables calling the drm_atomic_bridge_chain_* functions.
As documented, the framework calls the bridge pre_enable hooks following the chain from connector towards the encoder, enables the encoder, and then calls the enable hooks from bridge closest to the encoder towards the connector. A similar approach applies for bridge disable hooks, disable the encoder, and then bridge post_disable hooks. There should be no need to make any calls outside of that framework. Doing so is what is causing these problems.
As Laurent summarised it in [2]: "I can't agree more with Dave about the need for documentation, DSI drivers (both on the TX and RX side) are very creative these days, causing lots of interoperability issues. This wild west situation really needs some policing."
I acknowledge that there is a failing in the framework for DSI, and I've previously raised the question of how to best address this, but all suggestions have largely been shot down with no alternatives suggested. I won't say that this patch can't be merged, but merging it and ignoring the cause is admitting defeat.
Agree, but the only way I can imagine is to define a post-enable or let bridge to register some notification that allows them to decide when they should activate or not the HS mode. Adding an atomic post enable and define the exit from standby of the bridge to move in HS solve me the problem if it's called from this new hook.
Michael
Dave
[2] https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2021-December/334007.html
Michael
Michael
Signed-off-by: Michael Trimarchi michael@amarulasolutions.com
drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-ilitek-ili9881c.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-ilitek-ili9881c.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-ilitek-ili9881c.c index 103a16018975..f75eecb0e65c 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-ilitek-ili9881c.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-ilitek-ili9881c.c @@ -52,6 +52,8 @@ struct ili9881c {
struct regulator *power; struct gpio_desc *reset;
bool prepared;};
I found that this can be a general problem. Should not mandatory to track panel status
DRM_PANEL_PREPARED DRM_PANEL_ENABLED
Michael
#define ILI9881C_SWITCH_PAGE_INSTR(_page) \ @@ -707,6 +709,10 @@ static int ili9881c_prepare(struct drm_panel *panel) unsigned int i; int ret;
/* Preparing when already prepared is a no-op */if (ctx->prepared)return 0;/* Power the panel */ ret = regulator_enable(ctx->power); if (ret)@@ -745,6 +751,8 @@ static int ili9881c_prepare(struct drm_panel *panel) if (ret) return ret;
ctx->prepared = true;return 0;}
@@ -770,10 +778,16 @@ static int ili9881c_unprepare(struct drm_panel *panel) { struct ili9881c *ctx = panel_to_ili9881c(panel);
/* Unpreparing when already unprepared is a no-op */if (!ctx->prepared)return 0;mipi_dsi_dcs_enter_sleep_mode(ctx->dsi); regulator_disable(ctx->power); gpiod_set_value(ctx->reset, 1);ctx->prepared = false;return 0;}
-- 2.25.1
-- Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi Co-Founder & Chief Executive Officer M. +39 347 913 2170 michael@amarulasolutions.com __________________________________
Amarula Solutions BV Joop Geesinkweg 125, 1114 AB, Amsterdam, NL T. +31 (0)85 111 9172 info@amarulasolutions.com www.amarulasolutions.com
-- Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi Co-Founder & Chief Executive Officer M. +39 347 913 2170 michael@amarulasolutions.com __________________________________
Amarula Solutions BV Joop Geesinkweg 125, 1114 AB, Amsterdam, NL T. +31 (0)85 111 9172 info@amarulasolutions.com www.amarulasolutions.com
-- Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi Co-Founder & Chief Executive Officer M. +39 347 913 2170 michael@amarulasolutions.com __________________________________
Amarula Solutions BV Joop Geesinkweg 125, 1114 AB, Amsterdam, NL T. +31 (0)85 111 9172 info@amarulasolutions.com www.amarulasolutions.com
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
-
Dave Stevenson -
Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi -
Michael Trimarchi