On 11/13/24 1:45 PM, John Watts wrote:
> It really seems like the code means mixers here.
True, I was wrong about my statement. But with A133, the case of independent DE
is unique, which I couldn't test yet.
> If my thoughts are correct, this would break use of mixer0 and mixer1 at the
> same time
On 11/13/24 5:03 AM, John Watts wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 10:43:44PM +0530, Parthiban wrote:
>> #define TCON_TOP_PORT_DE0_MSK GENMASK(1, 0)
>> #define TCON_TOP_PORT_DE1_MSK GENMASK(5, 4)
>>
>> references towards DE0 and DE1 is for DE itself,
On 11/12/24 5:27 PM, John Watts wrote:
> Hey everyone,
>
> I'm not sure exactly where to add this but I discussed some of this with
> Parthiban on #linux-sunxi a few days ago, so I want to write it down
> before I work on the next version of the patch.
>
> I had assumed for some reason in my mind
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 11:40:14AM +0530, Parthiban wrote:
> No, Mixers in upstream refers to RT-Mixers inside the DE. It's only the
> quirk for R40/D1 setting the DE ports using mixer numbering.
After an hour or two of spelunking the code base, I'm still not sure about this.
Confusables:
-
Hi there,
On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 10:43:44PM +0530, Parthiban wrote:
> #define TCON_TOP_PORT_DE0_MSK GENMASK(1, 0)
> #define TCON_TOP_PORT_DE1_MSK GENMASK(5, 4)
>
> references towards DE0 and DE1 is for DE itself, not the mixers in the
> current implementation.
Hey everyone,
I'm not sure exactly where to add this but I discussed some of this with
Parthiban on #linux-sunxi a few days ago, so I want to write it down
before I work on the next version of the patch.
I had assumed for some reason in my mind that DE0 and DE1 here referred
to mixers, but they a
On 11/8/24 6:59 PM, John Watts wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2024 at 11:53:57AM +, Andre Przywara wrote:
>> Hi John,
>
> Hi Andre!
>
>> Can you say *why* this patch is needed? Is there something broken that
>> needs fixing? Where does this show and why wasn't this a problem before?
>
> Oops, that
On Fri, Nov 08, 2024 at 07:36:16PM +0530, Parthiban wrote:
> To add, 0x20 will be DE0 <--> LCD0 and DE1 <--> TV0. Below note (copied from
> R40) states the priority of the DE selection, which fails to work? Not sure,
> may be disabling CORE1_SCLK_GATE and CORE1_HCLK_GATE in de2-clk helps.
>
> With
On Fri, Nov 08, 2024 at 11:53:57AM +, Andre Przywara wrote:
> Hi John,
Hi Andre!
> Can you say *why* this patch is needed? Is there something broken that
> needs fixing? Where does this show and why wasn't this a problem before?
Oops, that's a good point. There is currently a bug where the L
On Fri, 08 Nov 2024 12:40:16 +1100
John Watts wrote:
Hi John,
thanks for taking care and sending a patch!
> On the D1 and T113 the TCON TOP cannot handle setting both DEs to a
> single output, even if the outputs are disabled. As a workaround assign
> DE1 to TVE0 by default.
Can you say *why*
On the D1 and T113 the TCON TOP cannot handle setting both DEs to a
single output, even if the outputs are disabled. As a workaround assign
DE1 to TVE0 by default.
A full fix for this would include logic that makes sure both DEs never
share the same output.
Signed-off-by: John Watts
---
drivers
11 matches
Mail list logo
