Le sam. 22 août 2020 à 0:11, Paul Boddie <p...@boddie.org.uk> a
écrit :
On Friday, 21 August 2020 15:32:46 CEST Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 at 19:49, Paul Boddie <p...@boddie.org.uk>
wrote:
>
> It still doesn't work for me. I still get "Input not supported"
from my
> monitor. It is a DVI monitor connected via a HDMI adapter, but
EDID
> probing
> works and, as I noted previously, the HDMI/LCDC can be made to
work (and
> obviously did work in the 3.18 kernel).
This means the dw_hdmi encoder driver is still not good enough
to support your adapter. I haven't yet compared v3.18 vendor
with our version, but I'm afraid that the dw_hdmi stack has
probably changed quite a bit, so a comparison will be difficult.
I would have to look at this again to check, but although I may have
referred
to the 3.18 HDMI driver (drivers/gpu/drm/jz4780/dwc_hdmi.c), I'm
fairly sure I
used the more recent driver
(drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/synopsys/dw_hdmi.c) as my
primary reference when making the hardware work with the L4 Runtime
Environment. But the actual functionality with regard to setting
registers in
the HDMI peripheral is mostly identical between both forms of the
driver.
(This makes sense because few people are likely to have access to the
proprietary documentation. In fact, few people are likely to have
even tried
to deduce what is doing on. One of the register value tables suggests
that one
of the values would really need to be different, if you consider the
patterns
involved, which means that either the documentation mentions this
special case
or that a mistake has been made that has not yet been exposed through
real
world use.)
The natural debug path for me would be to checkout v3.18,
connect your DVI monitor and make a dump of all the
dw_hdmi registers, then make the same dump for our
mainline kernel -- making sure we are comparing the same
mode.
It is possible that something does not get initialised in the same
way, and
Nikolaus and I have been working with register dumps, although I
haven't been
generating them myself within Linux. So it is possible that I am
missing some
misconfiguration in the driver that causes an incompatibility with my
monitor.
It should be noted that the initialisation is simpler with the DVI
mode,
thankfully. The "AVI infoframe" stuff (going from memory) is
completely
skipped, as are a range of other things, which made my
reimplementation effort
somewhat quicker. I also didn't bother with the audio functionality,
but then
I don't think DVI has any audio channels, either.
One reason for implementing drivers for L4Re was to determine what is
actually
needed to initialise the hardware correctly, doing so in an
environment that
has been quicker to test than Linux has been (given some very old
development
hardware I have been using until recently). Another reason is that I
actually
want to get the CI20 hardware working with L4Re, which it was
originally
supposed to do, but in fact that effort was never actually finished.
> I downloaded it from here:
>
>
https://gitlab.collabora.com/linux/0day/-/tree/jz4780-drm-hdmi-v5.9-rc1
>
> (I was going to clone the repository late last night, but it was
taking a
> long time and I also didn't want to clone everything yet again.)
If you want to avoid cloning the same things over and over
you can use git-clone --reference. And if you want to checkout
just a single branch, git now has --single-branch.
For instance, (assuming a torvalds/ local repo):
git clone -b letux/jz4780-hdmi-v4 --single-branch
git://git.goldelico.com/letux-kernel.git --reference torvalds/ letux
Thanks for the tip! I guess I will spare everyone my thoughts about
git's
never-ending usability deficit.
[...]
> It would be nice to reconcile the JZ4780 support with the evolving
> upstream support, accommodating the extended descriptors and the
extra
> register usage.
I think that's already done in the patches I've cleaned up.
The only thing left to check is plane offset and overlay enablement.
There are some things that are done in different places, like various
registers being set in particular "atomic" methods and not during
probing.
Also, the upstream driver has specific plane descriptors whereas my
own
modifications introduced dual descriptors in a slightly different
way. Plus,
the upstream driver doesn't support extended descriptors, as far as I
am
aware.
So, unless Paul Cercueil is fine with what you have done, I don't
think we are
close to integrating anything. Then again, I am not really a Linux
kernel
developer, so perhaps I won't comment in depth about what the
requirements
might be.
If you send clean patches, there's no reason for me not to merge them.
> P.S. I noticed a few problems with the 5.9-rc1 branches such as
powering
> down not actually removing the power and, in my own branch,
networking
> not working reliably (or maybe even at all), with the tedious
progress
> indicator never terminating in the boot sequence. So, once again,
it is
> another case of half a step forwards and about three steps back.
Life (and kernel) is like this: sometimes you need to take three
steps
back to make a jump forward :-)
That's pretty much expected for a -rc1 release. Wait until -rc3 or -rc4
to have something more or less stable.
Cheers,
-Paul
Well, I wish I could be so optimistic. Objectively, the whole Linux
kernel
development process is just so poor when we consider that we started
out in
2014 or earlier with software that actually worked with the hardware,
but
since it wasn't written quite to everybody's tastes and in line with
the
fashions of the day, the whole exercise of reworking it was thrown
straight
back at the developers. And since the developers were only being paid
for as
long as their employers were interested, which turned out not to last
particularly long, we all ended up with yet another piece of
equipment which
risks becoming obsolete unnecessarily.
Of course I would probably benefit from upstreamed support for the
CI20,
although I was actually fairly happy using the 3.18 kernel with a
relatively
recent Debian version, and we might not yet be at the point where new
Debian
releases don't work with such an old kernel. But for the most part I
don't
really care personally about fixing up Linux support for such
hardware because
my own interests lie elsewhere. I suppose the most I get out of it is
looking
at how the hardware works and being in a stronger position to
reimplement the
driver support for L4Re. Indeed, I got the RTC support working in
L4Re in
order to troubleshoot the Linux drivers, although they still seem to
be
pathologically unable to handle the "lost clock" condition that is
hardly
unlikely on the CI20.
Yet at the same time, I always manage to feel guilty asking for
cooperation to
get improvements made to Linux, spending quite a bit of my own
personal time
working with the underdocumented frameworks involved, building,
deploying,
testing, and so on. And this is just my own way of offering help to
others who
might not be in quite the same position, technically, to improve a
situation
that might be far more important to them. Whatever little
satisfaction I might
get from helping out tends to get completely overwhelmed by the
amount of
effort, frustration and time involved.
Anyway, sorry for the rant. I'm sure other people find their own
activities of
this nature to be sufficiently fulfilling and enjoyable. Life does
present us
all with setbacks, but I generally don't appreciate getting served up
with
more of them just so that some people in the Valley or wherever can
"have fun"
or whatever the mantra is these days.
Paul
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
