* Stephen Warren wrote: > On 04/11/2012 06:10 AM, Thierry Reding wrote: > > This commit adds a very basic DRM driver for NVIDIA Tegra SoCs. It > > currently has rudimentary GEM support and can run a console on the > > framebuffer as well as X using the xf86-video-modesetting driver. > > Only the RGB output is supported. Quite a lot of things still need > > to be worked out and there is a lot of room for cleanup. > > I'll let Jon Mayo comment on the actual driver implementation, since > he's a lot more familiar with Tegra's display hardware. However, I have > some general comments below. > > > .../devicetree/bindings/gpu/drm/tegra.txt | 24 + > > arch/arm/mach-tegra/board-dt-tegra20.c | 3 + > > arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra2_clocks.c | 8 +- > > drivers/gpu/drm/Kconfig | 2 + > > drivers/gpu/drm/Makefile | 1 + > > drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/Kconfig | 10 + > > drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/Makefile | 5 + > > drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/tegra_drv.c | 2241 > > ++++++++++++++++++++ > > drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/tegra_drv.h | 184 ++ > > include/drm/tegra_drm.h | 44 + > > Splitting this patch into two, between arch/arm and drivers/gpu would be > a good idea.
I can certainly do that.
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/drm/tegra.txt
> > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/drm/tegra.txt
>
> > + drm@54200000 {
> > + compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-drm";
>
> This doesn't seem right; there isn't a "DRM" hardware module on Tegra,
> since "DRM" is a Linux/software-specific term.
>
> I'd at least expect to see this compatible flag be renamed to something
> more like "nvidia,tegra20-dc" (dc==display controller).
>
> Since Tegra has two display controller modules (I believe identical?),
> and numerous other independent(?) blocks, I'd expect to see multiple
> nodes in device tree, one per hardware block, such that each block gets
> its own device and driver. That said, I'm not familiar enough with
> Tegra's display and graphics HW to know if this makes sense. Jon, what's
> your take here? The clock change below, and in particular the original
> code there that we use downstream, lends weight to my argument.
>
> > + reg = < 0x54200000 0x00040000 /* display A */
> > + 0x54240000 0x00040000 /* display B */
> > + 0x58000000 0x02000000 >; /* GART aperture */
> > + interrupts = < 0 73 0x04 /* display A */
> > + 0 74 0x04 >; /* display B */
> > +
> > + lvds {
> > + type = "rgb";
>
> These sub-nodes probably want a "compatible" property rather than a
> "type" property.
"compatible" suggests that a driver would bind to it. However the data really
is only passed to the DC driver for configuration.
> > + size = <345 194>;
> > +
> > + default-mode {
> > + pixel-clock = <61715000>;
> > + vertical-refresh = <50>;
> > + resolution = <1366 768>;
> > + bits-per-pixel = <16>;
> > + horizontal-timings = <4 136 2 36>;
> > + vertical-timings = <2 4 21 10>;
> > + };
> > + };
>
> I imagine that quite a bit of thought needs to be put into the output
> part of the binding in order to:
>
> * Model the outputs/connectors separately from display controllers.
> * Make sure that the basic infra-structure for representing an output is
> general enough to be extensible to all the kinds of outputs we support,
> not just the LVDS output.
I haven't played around with HDMI at all yet, so I don't know of the
requirements. I'm pretty sure the above isn't anywhere near complete
though.
> * We were wondering about putting an EDID into the DT to represent the
> display modes, so that all outputs had EDIDs rather than "real" monitors
> having EDIDs, and fixed internal displays having some other
> representation of capabilities.
That's an interesting approach. I like it.
> I'm hoping that Jon will drive this.
>
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra2_clocks.c
> > b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra2_clocks.c
>
> > - PERIPH_CLK("disp1", "tegradc.0", NULL, 27, 0x138,
> > 600000000, mux_pllp_plld_pllc_clkm, MUX), /* scales with voltage and
> > process_id */
> > - PERIPH_CLK("disp2", "tegradc.1", NULL, 26, 0x13c,
> > 600000000, mux_pllp_plld_pllc_clkm, MUX), /* scales with voltage and
> > process_id */
> > + PERIPH_CLK("disp1", "tegra-drm", NULL, 27, 0x138,
> > 600000000, mux_pllp_plld_pllc_clkm, MUX), /* scales with voltage and
> > process_id */
> > + PERIPH_CLK("disp2", "tegra-drm", NULL, 26, 0x13c,
> > 600000000, mux_pllp_plld_pllc_clkm, MUX), /* scales with voltage and
> > process_id */
>
> This doesn't seem right, and couples back to my assertion above that the
> two display controller modules probably deserve separate device objects,
> named e.g. tegradc.*.
I think I understand where you're going with this. Does the following look
more correct?
disp1 : dc@54200000 {
compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-dc";
reg = <0x54200000, 0x00040000>;
interrupts = <0 73 0x04>;
};
disp2 : dc@54240000 {
compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-dc";
reg = <0x54240000, 0x00040000>;
interrupts = <0 74 0x04>;
};
drm {
compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-drm";
lvds {
compatible = "...";
dc = <&disp1>;
};
hdmi {
compatible = "...";
dc = <&disp2>;
};
};
> > +static int tegra_drm_parse_dt_mode(struct device *dev,
> ...
> > + err = of_property_read_u32(node, "pixel-clock", &value);
> > + if (err < 0)
> > + return err;
>
> Is it useful to call dev_err() when the DT is present but can't be
> parsed, to give some clue what the problem is?
Yes, that might be a good idea.
> > +static int tegra_drm_parse_dt(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +{
> ...
> > + pdata = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*pdata), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!pdata)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> ...
> > + dev->platform_data = pdata;
>
> I don't think you should assign to dev->platform_data. If you do, then I
> think the following could happen:
>
> * During first probe, the assignment above happens
> * Module is removed, hence device removed, hence dev->platform_data
> freed, but not zero'd out
Actually the code does zero out platform_data in tegra_drm_remove(). In fact
I did test module unloading and reloading and it works properly. But it
should probably be zeroed in case drm_platform_init() fails as well.
> * Module is re-inserted, finds that dev->platform_data!=NULL and
> proceeds to use it.
>
> Instead, the active platform data should probably be stored in a
> tegra_drm struct that's stored in the dev's private data.
> tegra_drm_probe() might then look more like:
>
> struct tegra_drm *tdev;
>
> tdev = devm_kzalloc();
> tdev->pdata = pdev->dev.platform_data;
> if (!tdev->pdata)
> tdev->pdata = tegra_drm_parse_dt();
> if (!tdev->pdata)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> dev_set_drvdata(dev, tdev);
>
> This is safe, since probe() will never assume that dev_get_drvdata()
> might contain something valid before probe() sets it.
I prefer my approach over storing the data in an extra field because the
device platform_data field is where everybody would expect it. Furthermore
this wouldn't be relevant if we decided not to support non-DT setups.
Thierry
pgp0hTfd1HZK6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
