On Thu, 12 Dec 2019, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 12-12-2019 16:52, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Dec 2019, Hans de Goede wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 12-12-2019 09:45, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 11 Dec 2019, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Lee,
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10-12-2019 09:51, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, 19 Nov 2019, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > At least Bay Trail (BYT) and Cherry Trail (CHT) devices can use 1
> > > > > > > of 2
> > > > > > > different PWM controllers for controlling the LCD's backlight
> > > > > > > brightness.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Either the one integrated into the PMIC or the one integrated
> > > > > > > into the
> > > > > > > SoC (the 1st LPSS PWM controller).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So far in the LPSS code on BYT we have skipped registering the
> > > > > > > LPSS PWM
> > > > > > > controller "pwm_backlight" lookup entry when a Crystal Cove PMIC
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > present, assuming that in this case the PMIC PWM controller will
> > > > > > > be used.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On CHT we have been relying on only 1 of the 2 PWM controllers
> > > > > > > being
> > > > > > > enabled in the DSDT at the same time; and always registered the
> > > > > > > lookup.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So far this has been working, but the correct way to determine
> > > > > > > which PWM
> > > > > > > controller needs to be used is by checking a bit in the VBT table
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > recently I've learned about 2 different BYT devices:
> > > > > > > Point of View MOBII TAB-P800W
> > > > > > > Acer Switch 10 SW5-012
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Which use a Crystal Cove PMIC, yet the LCD is connected to the
> > > > > > > SoC/LPSS
> > > > > > > PWM controller (and the VBT correctly indicates this), so here
> > > > > > > our old
> > > > > > > heuristics fail.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since only the i915 driver has access to the VBT, this commit
> > > > > > > renames
> > > > > > > the "pwm_backlight" lookup entries for the Crystal Cove PMIC's PWM
> > > > > > > controller to "pwm_pmic_backlight" so that the i915 driver can do
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > pwm_get() for the right controller depending on the VBT bit,
> > > > > > > instead of
> > > > > > > the i915 driver relying on a "pwm_backlight" lookup getting
> > > > > > > registered
> > > > > > > which magically points to the right controller.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdego...@redhat.com>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > drivers/mfd/intel_soc_pmic_core.c | 2 +-
> > > > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For my own reference:
> > > > > > Acked-for-MFD-by: Lee Jones <lee.jo...@linaro.org>
> > > > >
> > > > > As mentioned in the cover-letter, to avoid breaking bi-sectability
> > > > > as well as to avoid breaking the intel-gfx CI we need to merge this
> > > > > series
> > > > > in one go through one tree. Specifically through the drm-intel tree.
> > > > > Is that ok with you ?
> > > > >
> > > > > If this is ok with you, then you do not have to do anything, I will
> > > > > just push
> > > > > the entire series to drm-intel. drivers/mfd/intel_soc_pmic_core.c
> > > > > does not see much changes so I do not expect this to lead to any
> > > > > conflicts.
> > > >
> > > > It's fine, so long as a minimal immutable pull-request is provided.
> > > > Whether it's pulled or not will depend on a number of factors, but it
> > > > needs to be an option.
> > >
> > > The way the drm subsys works that is not really a readily available
> > > option. The struct definition which this patch changes a single line in
> > > has not been touched since 2015-06-26 so I really doubt we will get a
> > > conflict from this.
> >
> > Always with the exceptions ...
> >
> > OOI, why does this *have* to go through the DRM tree?
>
> This patch renames the name used to lookup the pwm controller from
> "pwm_backlight" to "pwm_pmic_backlight" because there are 2 possible
> pwm controllers which may be used, one in the SoC itself and one
> in the PMIC. Which controller should be used is described in a table
> in the Video BIOS, so another part of this series adds this code to
> the i915 driver:
>
> - panel->backlight.pwm = pwm_get(dev->dev, "pwm_backlight");
> + /* Get the right PWM chip for DSI backlight according to VBT */
> + if (dev_priv->vbt.dsi.config->pwm_blc == PPS_BLC_PMIC) {
> + panel->backlight.pwm = pwm_get(dev->dev, "pwm_pmic_backlight");
> + desc = "PMIC";
> + } else {
> + panel->backlight.pwm = pwm_get(dev->dev, "pwm_soc_backlight");
> + desc = "SoC";
> + }
>
> So both not to break bisectability, but also so as to not break the extensive
> CI system which is used to test the i915 driver we need the MFD change doing
> the rename to go upstrream through the same tree as the i915 change.
>
> I have even considered just squashing the 2 commits together as having only 1
> present, but not the other breaks stuff left and right.
That doesn't answer the question.
Why do they all *have* to go in via the DRM tree specifically?
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
