On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 at 12:22, <neil.armstr...@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 28/08/2023 19:07, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
> > Hi Neil
> >
> > Sorry I didnt respond earlier on this thread.
> >
> > On 8/28/2023 1:49 AM, neil.armstr...@linaro.org wrote:
> >> Hi Jessica,
> >>
> >> On 25/08/2023 20:37, Jessica Zhang wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 8/21/2023 3:01 AM, neil.armstr...@linaro.org wrote:
> >>>> Hi Maxime,
> >>>>
> >>>> On 21/08/2023 10:17, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 10:25:48AM +0200, neil.armstr...@linaro.org
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 17/08/2023 20:35, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 16/08/2023 10:51, neil.armstr...@linaro.org wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Sending HS commands will always work on any controller, it's all
> >>>>>>>> about LP commands. The Samsung panels you listed only send HS
> >>>>>>>> commands so they can use prepare_prev_first and work on any
> >>>>>>>> controllers.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think there is some misunderstanding there, supported by the
> >>>>>>> description of the flag.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If I remember correctly, some hosts (sunxi) can not send DCS
> >>>>>>> commands after enabling video stream and switching to HS mode, see
> >>>>>>> [1]. Thus, as you know, most of the drivers have all DSI panel setup
> >>>>>>> commands in drm_panel_funcs::prepare() /
> >>>>>>> drm_bridge_funcs::pre_enable() callbacks, not paying attention
> >>>>>>> whether these commands are to be sent in LP or in HS mode.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Previously DSI source drivers could power on the DSI link either in
> >>>>>>> mode_set() or in pre_enable() callbacks, with mode_set() being the
> >>>>>>> hack to make panel/bridge drivers to be able to send commands from
> >>>>>>> their prepare() / pre_enable() callbacks.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> With the prev_first flags being introduced, we have established that
> >>>>>>> DSI link should be enabled in DSI host's pre_enable() callback and
> >>>>>>> switched to HS mode (be it command or video) in the enable()
> >>>>>>> callback.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So far so good.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It seems coherent, I would like first to have a state of all DSI host
> >>>>>> drivers and make this would actually work first before adding the
> >>>>>> prev_first flag to all the required panels.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is definitely what we should do in an ideal world, but at least for
> >>>>> sunxi there's no easy way for it at the moment. There's no documentation
> >>>>> for it and the driver provided doesn't allow this to happen.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Note that I'm not trying to discourage you or something here, I'm simply
> >>>>> pointing out that this will be something that we will have to take into
> >>>>> account. And it's possible that other drivers are in a similar
> >>>>> situation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Unfortunately this change is not fully backwards-compatible. This
> >>>>>>> requires that all DSI panels sending commands from prepare() should
> >>>>>>> have the prepare_prev_first flag. In some sense, all such patches
> >>>>>>> might have Fixes: 5ea6b1702781 ("drm/panel: Add prepare_prev_first
> >>>>>>> flag to drm_panel").
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This kind of migration should be done *before* any possible
> >>>>>> regression, not the other way round.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If all panels sending commands from prepare() should have the
> >>>>>> prepare_prev_first flag, then it should be first, check for
> >>>>>> regressions then continue.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I understand, but this patch doesn't qualify as a fix for
> >>>>>>>> 9e15123eca79 and is too late to be merged in drm-misc-next for
> >>>>>>>> v6.6, and since 9e15123eca79 actually breaks some support it
> >>>>>>>> should be reverted (+ deps) since we are late in the rc cycles.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If we go this way, we can never reapply these patches. There will be
> >>>>>>> no guarantee that all panel drivers are completely converted. We
> >>>>>>> already have a story without an observable end -
> >>>>>>> DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't understand this point, who would block re-applying the patches
> >>>>>> ?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The migration to DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR was done over multiple
> >>>>>> Linux version and went smoothly because we reverted regressing patches
> >>>>>> and restarted when needed, I don't understand why we can't do this
> >>>>>> here aswell.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'd consider that the DSI driver is correct here and it is about the
> >>>>>>> panel drivers that require fixes patches. If you care about the
> >>>>>>> particular Fixes tag, I have provided one several lines above.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Unfortunately it should be done in the other way round, prepare for
> >>>>>> migration, then migrate,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I mean if it's a required migration, then it should be done and I'll
> >>>>>> support it from both bridge and panel PoV.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So, first this patch has the wrong Fixes tag, and I would like a
> >>>>>> better explanation on the commit message in any case. Then I would
> >>>>>> like to have an ack from some drm-misc maintainers before applying it
> >>>>>> because it fixes a patch that was sent via the msm tree thus per the
> >>>>>> drm-misc rules I cannot apply it via the drm-misc-next-fixes tree.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sorry, it's not clear to me what you'd like our feedback on exactly?
> >>>>
> >>>> So let me resume the situation:
> >>>>
> >>>> - pre_enable_prev_first was introduced in [1]
> >>>> - some panels made use of pre_enable_prev_first
> >>>> - Visionox VTDR6130 was enabled on SM8550 systems and works on v6.5
> >>>> kernels and before
> >>>> - patch [2] was introduced on MSM DRM tree, breaking VTDR6130 on SM8550
> >>>> systems (and probably other Video mode panels on Qcom platforms)
> >>>> - this fix was sent late, and is now too late to be merged via
> >>>> drm-misc-next
> >>>
> >>> Hi Neil and Maxime,
> >>>
> >>> I agree with Neil that 9e15123eca79 was the commit that introduced the
> >>> issue (since it changed the MSM DSI host behavior).
> >>>
> >>> However, I'm not too keen on simply reverting that patch because
> >>>
> >>> 1) it's not wrong to have the dsi_power_on in pre_enable. Arguably, it
> >>> actually makes more sense to power on DSI host in pre_enable than in
> >>> modeset (since modeset is meant for setting the bridge mode), and
> >>
> >> I never objected that, it's the right path to go.
> >>
> >
> > Ack.
> >
> >>>
> >>> 2) I think it would be good practice to keep specific bridge chip checks
> >>> out of the DSI host driver.
> >>
> >> We discussed about a plan with Maxime and Dmitry about that, and it would
> >> require adding
> >> a proper atomic panel API to handle a "negociation" with the host
> >> controller.
> >>
> >
> > May I know what type of negotiation is needed here?
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> That being said, what do you think about setting the default value of
> >>> prepare_prev_first to true (possibly in panel_bridge_attach)?
> >>
> >> As Dmitry pointed, all panels sending LP commands in pre_enable() should
> >> have prepare_prev_first to true.
> >>
> >
> > I wanted to respond to this earlier but didnt get a chance.
> >
> > From the documentation of this flag, this has nothing to do whether panels
> > are sending the LP commands (commands sent in LP mode) OR HS commands
> > (commands sent in HS mode).
> >
> > This is more about sending the commands whether the lanes are in LP11 state
> > before sending the ON commands.
> >
> > 195 * The previous controller should be prepared first, before the
> > prepare
> > 196 * for the panel is called. This is largely required for DSI panels
> > 197 * where the DSI host controller should be initialised to LP-11
> > before
> > 198 * the panel is powered up.
> > 199 */
> > 200 bool prepare_prev_first;
> >
> > These are conceptually different and thats what I explained Dmitry in our
> > call.
> >
> > Sending ON commands in LP11 state is a requirement I have seen with many
> > panels and its actually the right expectation as well to send the commands
> > when the lanes are in a well-defined LP11 state.
> >
> > From the panels which I have seen, the opposite is never true (OR i have
> > never seen it this way).
> >
> > The parade chip was the only exception and that issue was never root-caused
> > leading us to have bridge specific handling in MSM driver.
> >
> > In other words, it would be very unlikely that a panel should be broken or
> > shouldn't work when the ON commands are sent when the lanes are in LP11
> > state.
> >
> > So I agree with Jessica, that we should set the default value of this flag
> > to true in the framework so that only the bridges/panels which need this to
> > be false do that explicitly. From the examples I pointed out including MTK,
> > even those vendors are powering on their DSI in pre_enable() which means
> > none of these panels will work there too.
> >
> >>>
> >>> It seems to me that most panel drivers send DCS commands during
> >>> pre_enable, so maybe it would make more sense to power on DSI host before
> >>> panel enable() by default. Any panel that needs DSI host to be powered on
> >>> later could then explicitly set the flag to false in their respective
> >>> drivers.
> >>
> >> A proper migration should be done, yes, but not as a fix on top of v6.5.
> >>
> >
> > I am fine to drop this fix in favor of making the prepare_prev_first as
> > default true but we need an agreement first. From what I can see, parade
> > chip will be the only one which will need this to be set to false and we
> > can make that change.
> >
> > Let me know if this works as a migration plan.
>
> Yep agreed, let's do this
>
> The panel's prepare_prev_first should be reversed to something like
> not_prepare_prev_first to make it an exception.
This will break all non-DSI panels, which might depend on the current
bridge calling order.
I started looking at the explicit DSI power up sequencing, but it will
take a few more days to mature.
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
