On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 5:33 PM Rob Clark <robdcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 4:48 PM Rob Herring <robh...@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 4:13 PM Rob Clark <robdcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 12:48 PM Rob Herring <robh...@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 9:20 AM Rob Clark <robdcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 8:18 AM Rob Clark <robdcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 5:38 AM Thierry Reding
> > > > > > <thierry.red...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 06:53:04PM -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 4:27 PM Matthias Kaehlcke
> > > > > > > > <m...@chromium.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 02:08:19PM -0700, Douglas Anderson
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > The sc7180-trogdor-pompom board might be attached to any
> > > > > > > > > > number of a
> > > > > > > > > > pile of eDP panels. At the moment I'm told that the list
> > > > > > > > > > might include:
> > > > > > > > > > - KD KD116N21-30NV-A010
> > > > > > > > > > - KD KD116N09-30NH-A016
> > > > > > > > > > - Starry 2081116HHD028001-51D
> > > > > > > > > > - Sharp LQ116M1JW10
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It should be noted that while the EDID programmed in the
> > > > > > > > > > first 3
> > > > > > > > > > panels indicates that they should run with exactly the same
> > > > > > > > > > timing (to
> > > > > > > > > > keep things simple), the 4th panel not only needs different
> > > > > > > > > > timing but
> > > > > > > > > > has a different resolution.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > As is true in general with eDP panels, we can figure out
> > > > > > > > > > which panel
> > > > > > > > > > we have and all the info needed to drive its pixel clock by
> > > > > > > > > > reading
> > > > > > > > > > the EDID. However, we can do this only after we've powered
> > > > > > > > > > the panel
> > > > > > > > > > on. Powering on the panels requires following the timing
> > > > > > > > > > diagram in
> > > > > > > > > > each panel's datasheet which specifies delays between
> > > > > > > > > > certain
> > > > > > > > > > actions. This means that, while we can be quite dynamic
> > > > > > > > > > about handling
> > > > > > > > > > things we can't just totally skip out on describing the
> > > > > > > > > > panel like we
> > > > > > > > > > could do if it was connected to an external-facing DP port.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > While the different panels have slightly different delays,
> > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > possible to come up with a set of unified delays that will
> > > > > > > > > > work on all
> > > > > > > > > > the panels. From reading the datasheets:
> > > > > > > > > > * KD KD116N21-30NV-A010 and KD KD116N09-30NH-A016
> > > > > > > > > > - HPD absent delay: 200 ms
> > > > > > > > > > - Unprepare delay: 150 ms (datasheet is confusing, might
> > > > > > > > > > be 500 ms)
> > > > > > > > > > * Starry 2081116HHD028001-51D
> > > > > > > > > > - HPD absent delay: 100 ms
> > > > > > > > > > - Enable delay: (link training done till enable BL): 200
> > > > > > > > > > ms
> > > > > > > > > > - Unprepare delay: 500 ms
> > > > > > > > > > * Sharp LQ116M1JW10
> > > > > > > > > > - HPD absent delay: 200 ms
> > > > > > > > > > - Unprepare delay: 500 ms
> > > > > > > > > > - Prepare to enable delay (power on till backlight): 100
> > > > > > > > > > ms
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Unified:
> > > > > > > > > > - HPD absent delay: 200 ms
> > > > > > > > > > - Unprepare delay: 500 ms
> > > > > > > > > > - Enable delay: 200 ms
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > NOTE: in theory the only thing that we _really_ need unity
> > > > > > > > > > on is the
> > > > > > > > > > "HPD absent delay" since once the panel asserts HPD we can
> > > > > > > > > > read the
> > > > > > > > > > EDID and could make per-panel decisions if we wanted.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Let's create a definition of "a panel that can be attached
> > > > > > > > > > to pompom"
> > > > > > > > > > as a panel that provides a valid EDID and can work with the
> > > > > > > > > > standard
> > > > > > > > > > pompom power sequencing. If more panels are later attached
> > > > > > > > > > to pompom
> > > > > > > > > > then it's fine as long as they work in a compatible way.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > One might ask why we can't just use a generic string here
> > > > > > > > > > and provide
> > > > > > > > > > the timings directly in the device tree file. As I
> > > > > > > > > > understand it,
> > > > > > > > > > trying to describe generic power sequencing in the device
> > > > > > > > > > tree is
> > > > > > > > > > frowned upon and the one instance (SD/MMC) is regarded as a
> > > > > > > > > > mistake
> > > > > > > > > > that shouldn't be repeated. Specifying a power sequence per
> > > > > > > > > > board (or
> > > > > > > > > > per board class) feels like a reasonable compromise. We're
> > > > > > > > > > not trying
> > > > > > > > > > to define fully generic power sequence bindings but we can
> > > > > > > > > > also take
> > > > > > > > > > advantage of the semi-probable properties of the attached
> > > > > > > > > > device.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > NOTE: I believe that past instances of supporting this type
> > > > > > > > > > of thing
> > > > > > > > > > have used the "white lie" approach. One representative
> > > > > > > > > > panel was
> > > > > > > > > > listed in the device tree. The power sequencings of this
> > > > > > > > > > representative panel were OK to use across all panels that
> > > > > > > > > > might be
> > > > > > > > > > attached and other differences were handled by EDID. This
> > > > > > > > > > patch
> > > > > > > > > > attempts to set a new precedent and avoid the need for the
> > > > > > > > > > white lie.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <diand...@chromium.org>
> > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Sounds reasonable to me if DT maintainers can live with this
> > > > > > > > > abstract
> > > > > > > > > hardware definition. It's clearer than the 'white lie'
> > > > > > > > > approach.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yeah, it is a weird grey area between "discoverable" and "not
> > > > > > > > discoverable".. but I favor DT reflecting reality as much as
> > > > > > > > possible/feasible, so I think this is definity cleaner than
> > > > > > > > "white
> > > > > > > > lies"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is practically no different than the "white lie". I suppose
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > could perhaps call it "more honest", if you want.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The point remains that unless we describe exactly which panel
> > > > > > > we're
> > > > > > > dealing with, we ultimately have no way of properly quirking
> > > > > > > anything if
> > > > > > > we ever have to. Also, once we allow this kind of wildcard we can
> > > > > > > suddenly get into a situation where people might want to reuse
> > > > > > > this on
> > > > > > > something that's not at all a google-pompom board because the same
> > > > > > > particular power sequence happens to work on on some other board.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Similarly I can imagine a situation where we could now have the
> > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > panel supported by multiple different wildcard compatible
> > > > > > > strings. How
> > > > > > > is that supposed to be any cleaner than what we have now?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And I still keep wondering why bootloaders can't be taught about
> > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > kinds of things. We have in the past discussed various solutions
> > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > the bootloader could detect the type of panel connected and set
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > proper compatible string.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The bootloader cannot detect the panel without powering up the
> > > > > > panel,
> > > > > > which it normally does not do if you are not in dev-mode (it would
> > > > > > add
> > > > > > a significant amount of time to bootup, which is why we can't do
> > > > > > this)
> > > > >
> > > > > what if we had a sort of multi-choice panel node:
> > > > >
> > > > > panel: panel {
> > > > > compatible = "panel,one-of";
> > > > > compatible-one-of = "vendor1,panel-a", "vendor2,panel-b",
> > > > > "vendor3,panel-c";
> > > > > };
> > > > >
> > > > > The kernel could construct power sequence timings that are the
> > > > > superset of all the possible panels. That seems about as explicit as
> > > > > we could get in this sort of case.
> > > >
> > > > If we were to go this route, I'm inclined to say just shove all the
> > > > possible panel compatibles into 'compatible'. That kind of breaks the
> > > > notion of most specific to least specific. OTOH, it is saying the set
> > > > of panels are somehow 'compatible' with each other.
> > > >
> > > > If there's not some level of compatibility between the panels, then
> > > > it's still the bootloader's problem.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm not sure about this.. since there could be slight differences in
> > > various delay params between the possible panels. I'd prefer that in
> > > panel-simple.c, we listed exact delay params "vendorFoo,panelBar", but
> > > it could mean that for a device that had three possible panels the
> > > worst case (max of all possible delays) could be higher than any
> > > individual choice.. and I don't think we should encourage the "white
> > > lie" approach (which will be the obvious outcome of not handling this
> > > directly in dt IME, based on prior art). OTOH pushing it to the
> > > bootloader, when the bootloader actually has to power up the panel
> > > (and abide by the necessary delays) to figure out what choice we have
> > > isn't a viable option either.
> >
> > I was only saying if the panels are different enough and there's not a
> > worse case setting, then it's back to a bootloader problem. If we have
> > multiple distinct compatibles, then it means the kernel should be able
> > to figure out settings that work on all the possible panels listed.
> >
> > > It is better to be explicit about what we know and at the same time
> > > about what we don't know.
> >
> > Can you be explicit about what we know and don't know here? With what
> > you proposed and my alternative, at the end of the day we just have a
> > list of compatibles. The only implicit part is the expectation that
> > the set is somehow compatible with each other.
> >
>
> Ok, I think I was being incompatible with my definition of "compatible" ;-)
>
> To make sure we are on the same page, this is what I have in mind:
>
> 1) the panels are compatible enough that if a user breaks their panel
> and takes device in for repair, they might end up with a different
> panel
> 2) the different possible panels may have different power-on delay,
> etc, but max of all possible power on delays is fine and enough to get
> the kernel to the point that it can probe EDID and figure out the rest
>
(by which I mean, I think that is what you are saying.. earlier I was
considering panel A, B, and C as not being compatible if they had
different power on delays)
BR,
-R
