RE: [PATCH v4 3/7] drm: rcar-du: lvds: Get dual link configuration from DT
Hi Laurent,
Thank you for your feedback!
> From: Laurent Pinchart
> Sent: 13 December 2019 21:30
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/7] drm: rcar-du: lvds: Get dual link configuration
> from DT
>
> Hi Fabrizio,
>
> Thank you for the patch.
>
> On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 04:32:50PM +, Fabrizio Castro wrote:
> > For dual-LVDS configurations, it is now possible to mark the
> > DT port nodes for the sink with boolean properties (like
> > dual-lvds-even-pixels and dual-lvds-odd-pixels) to let drivers
> > know the encoders need to be configured in dual-LVDS mode.
> >
> > Rework the implementation of rcar_lvds_parse_dt_companion
> > to make use of the DT markers while keeping backward
> > compatibility.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Fabrizio Castro
> >
> > ---
> > v3->v4:
> > * New patch extracted from patch:
> > "drm: rcar-du: lvds: Add dual-LVDS panels support"
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_lvds.c | 56
> > +++--
> > 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_lvds.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_lvds.c
> > index 3cb0a83..6c1f171 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_lvds.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_lvds.c
> > @@ -669,8 +669,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcar_lvds_dual_link);
> > static int rcar_lvds_parse_dt_companion(struct rcar_lvds *lvds)
> > {
> > const struct of_device_id *match;
> > - struct device_node *companion;
> > + struct device_node *companion, *p0, *p1;
>
> Could you rename p0 and p1 to port0 and port1, and spit them to a
> separate line of variable declaration ?
sure
>
> > + struct rcar_lvds *companion_lvds;
> > struct device *dev = lvds->dev;
> > + int dual_link;
> > int ret = 0;
> >
> > /* Locate the companion LVDS encoder for dual-link operation, if any. */
> > @@ -689,13 +691,55 @@ static int rcar_lvds_parse_dt_companion(struct
> > rcar_lvds *lvds)
> > goto done;
> > }
> >
> > + /*
> > +* We need to work out if the sink is expecting us to function in
> > +* dual-link mode. We do this by looking at the DT port nodes we are
> > +* connected to, if they are marked as expecting even pixels and
> > +* odd pixels than we need to enable vertical stripe output.
> > +*/
> > + p0 = of_graph_get_port_by_id(dev->of_node, 1);
> > + p1 = of_graph_get_port_by_id(companion, 1);
> > + dual_link = drm_of_lvds_get_dual_link_pixel_order(p0, p1);
> > + of_node_put(p0);
> > + of_node_put(p1);
> > + if (dual_link >= DRM_LVDS_DUAL_LINK_EVEN_ODD_PIXELS) {
> > + lvds->dual_link = true;
> > + } else if (lvds->next_bridge && lvds->next_bridge->timings) {
> > + /*
> > +* Early dual-link bridge specific implementations populate the
> > +* timings field of drm_bridge, read the dual_link flag off the
> > +* bridge directly for backward compatibility.
> > +*/
> > + lvds->dual_link = lvds->next_bridge->timings->dual_link;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (!lvds->dual_link) {
> > + dev_dbg(dev, "Single-link configuration detected\n");
> > + goto done;
> > + }
> > +
> > lvds->companion = of_drm_find_bridge(companion);
> > if (!lvds->companion) {
> > ret = -EPROBE_DEFER;
> > goto done;
> > }
> >
> > - dev_dbg(dev, "Found companion encoder %pOF\n", companion);
> > + dev_dbg(dev,
> > + "Dual-link configuration detected (companion encoder %pOF)\n",
> > + companion);
> > +
> > + companion_lvds = bridge_to_rcar_lvds(lvds->companion);
>
> Could you move this line after the FIXME comment ?
Will do
Thanks,
Fab
>
> With these small issues fixed,
>
> Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart
>
> > +
> > + /*
> > +* FIXME: We should not be messing with the companion encoder private
> > +* data from the primary encoder, we should rather let the companion
> > +* encoder work things out on its own. However, the companion encoder
> > +* doesn't hold a reference to the primary encoder, and
> > +* drm_of_lvds_get_dual_link_pixel_order needs to be given references
> > +* to the output ports of both encoders, therefore leave it like this
> > +* for the time being.
&
Re: [PATCH v4 3/7] drm: rcar-du: lvds: Get dual link configuration from DT
Hi Fabrizio,
Thank you for the patch.
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 04:32:50PM +, Fabrizio Castro wrote:
> For dual-LVDS configurations, it is now possible to mark the
> DT port nodes for the sink with boolean properties (like
> dual-lvds-even-pixels and dual-lvds-odd-pixels) to let drivers
> know the encoders need to be configured in dual-LVDS mode.
>
> Rework the implementation of rcar_lvds_parse_dt_companion
> to make use of the DT markers while keeping backward
> compatibility.
>
> Signed-off-by: Fabrizio Castro
>
> ---
> v3->v4:
> * New patch extracted from patch:
> "drm: rcar-du: lvds: Add dual-LVDS panels support"
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_lvds.c | 56
> +++--
> 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_lvds.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_lvds.c
> index 3cb0a83..6c1f171 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_lvds.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_lvds.c
> @@ -669,8 +669,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcar_lvds_dual_link);
> static int rcar_lvds_parse_dt_companion(struct rcar_lvds *lvds)
> {
> const struct of_device_id *match;
> - struct device_node *companion;
> + struct device_node *companion, *p0, *p1;
Could you rename p0 and p1 to port0 and port1, and spit them to a
separate line of variable declaration ?
> + struct rcar_lvds *companion_lvds;
> struct device *dev = lvds->dev;
> + int dual_link;
> int ret = 0;
>
> /* Locate the companion LVDS encoder for dual-link operation, if any. */
> @@ -689,13 +691,55 @@ static int rcar_lvds_parse_dt_companion(struct
> rcar_lvds *lvds)
> goto done;
> }
>
> + /*
> + * We need to work out if the sink is expecting us to function in
> + * dual-link mode. We do this by looking at the DT port nodes we are
> + * connected to, if they are marked as expecting even pixels and
> + * odd pixels than we need to enable vertical stripe output.
> + */
> + p0 = of_graph_get_port_by_id(dev->of_node, 1);
> + p1 = of_graph_get_port_by_id(companion, 1);
> + dual_link = drm_of_lvds_get_dual_link_pixel_order(p0, p1);
> + of_node_put(p0);
> + of_node_put(p1);
> + if (dual_link >= DRM_LVDS_DUAL_LINK_EVEN_ODD_PIXELS) {
> + lvds->dual_link = true;
> + } else if (lvds->next_bridge && lvds->next_bridge->timings) {
> + /*
> + * Early dual-link bridge specific implementations populate the
> + * timings field of drm_bridge, read the dual_link flag off the
> + * bridge directly for backward compatibility.
> + */
> + lvds->dual_link = lvds->next_bridge->timings->dual_link;
> + }
> +
> + if (!lvds->dual_link) {
> + dev_dbg(dev, "Single-link configuration detected\n");
> + goto done;
> + }
> +
> lvds->companion = of_drm_find_bridge(companion);
> if (!lvds->companion) {
> ret = -EPROBE_DEFER;
> goto done;
> }
>
> - dev_dbg(dev, "Found companion encoder %pOF\n", companion);
> + dev_dbg(dev,
> + "Dual-link configuration detected (companion encoder %pOF)\n",
> + companion);
> +
> + companion_lvds = bridge_to_rcar_lvds(lvds->companion);
Could you move this line after the FIXME comment ?
With these small issues fixed,
Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart
> +
> + /*
> + * FIXME: We should not be messing with the companion encoder private
> + * data from the primary encoder, we should rather let the companion
> + * encoder work things out on its own. However, the companion encoder
> + * doesn't hold a reference to the primary encoder, and
> + * drm_of_lvds_get_dual_link_pixel_order needs to be given references
> + * to the output ports of both encoders, therefore leave it like this
> + * for the time being.
> + */
> + companion_lvds->dual_link = true;
>
> done:
> of_node_put(companion);
> @@ -739,13 +783,7 @@ static int rcar_lvds_parse_dt(struct rcar_lvds *lvds)
> if (ret)
> goto done;
>
> - if ((lvds->info->quirks & RCAR_LVDS_QUIRK_DUAL_LINK) &&
> - lvds->next_bridge)
> - lvds->dual_link = lvds->next_bridge->timings
> - ? lvds->next_bridge->timings->dual_link
> - : false;
> -
> - if (lvds->dual_link)
> + if (lvds->info->quirks & RCAR_LVDS_QUIRK_DUAL_LINK)
> ret = rcar_lvds_parse_dt_companion(lvds);
>
> done:
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
___
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
[PATCH v4 3/7] drm: rcar-du: lvds: Get dual link configuration from DT
For dual-LVDS configurations, it is now possible to mark the
DT port nodes for the sink with boolean properties (like
dual-lvds-even-pixels and dual-lvds-odd-pixels) to let drivers
know the encoders need to be configured in dual-LVDS mode.
Rework the implementation of rcar_lvds_parse_dt_companion
to make use of the DT markers while keeping backward
compatibility.
Signed-off-by: Fabrizio Castro
---
v3->v4:
* New patch extracted from patch:
"drm: rcar-du: lvds: Add dual-LVDS panels support"
---
drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_lvds.c | 56 +++--
1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_lvds.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_lvds.c
index 3cb0a83..6c1f171 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_lvds.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_lvds.c
@@ -669,8 +669,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcar_lvds_dual_link);
static int rcar_lvds_parse_dt_companion(struct rcar_lvds *lvds)
{
const struct of_device_id *match;
- struct device_node *companion;
+ struct device_node *companion, *p0, *p1;
+ struct rcar_lvds *companion_lvds;
struct device *dev = lvds->dev;
+ int dual_link;
int ret = 0;
/* Locate the companion LVDS encoder for dual-link operation, if any. */
@@ -689,13 +691,55 @@ static int rcar_lvds_parse_dt_companion(struct rcar_lvds
*lvds)
goto done;
}
+ /*
+* We need to work out if the sink is expecting us to function in
+* dual-link mode. We do this by looking at the DT port nodes we are
+* connected to, if they are marked as expecting even pixels and
+* odd pixels than we need to enable vertical stripe output.
+*/
+ p0 = of_graph_get_port_by_id(dev->of_node, 1);
+ p1 = of_graph_get_port_by_id(companion, 1);
+ dual_link = drm_of_lvds_get_dual_link_pixel_order(p0, p1);
+ of_node_put(p0);
+ of_node_put(p1);
+ if (dual_link >= DRM_LVDS_DUAL_LINK_EVEN_ODD_PIXELS) {
+ lvds->dual_link = true;
+ } else if (lvds->next_bridge && lvds->next_bridge->timings) {
+ /*
+* Early dual-link bridge specific implementations populate the
+* timings field of drm_bridge, read the dual_link flag off the
+* bridge directly for backward compatibility.
+*/
+ lvds->dual_link = lvds->next_bridge->timings->dual_link;
+ }
+
+ if (!lvds->dual_link) {
+ dev_dbg(dev, "Single-link configuration detected\n");
+ goto done;
+ }
+
lvds->companion = of_drm_find_bridge(companion);
if (!lvds->companion) {
ret = -EPROBE_DEFER;
goto done;
}
- dev_dbg(dev, "Found companion encoder %pOF\n", companion);
+ dev_dbg(dev,
+ "Dual-link configuration detected (companion encoder %pOF)\n",
+ companion);
+
+ companion_lvds = bridge_to_rcar_lvds(lvds->companion);
+
+ /*
+* FIXME: We should not be messing with the companion encoder private
+* data from the primary encoder, we should rather let the companion
+* encoder work things out on its own. However, the companion encoder
+* doesn't hold a reference to the primary encoder, and
+* drm_of_lvds_get_dual_link_pixel_order needs to be given references
+* to the output ports of both encoders, therefore leave it like this
+* for the time being.
+*/
+ companion_lvds->dual_link = true;
done:
of_node_put(companion);
@@ -739,13 +783,7 @@ static int rcar_lvds_parse_dt(struct rcar_lvds *lvds)
if (ret)
goto done;
- if ((lvds->info->quirks & RCAR_LVDS_QUIRK_DUAL_LINK) &&
- lvds->next_bridge)
- lvds->dual_link = lvds->next_bridge->timings
- ? lvds->next_bridge->timings->dual_link
- : false;
-
- if (lvds->dual_link)
+ if (lvds->info->quirks & RCAR_LVDS_QUIRK_DUAL_LINK)
ret = rcar_lvds_parse_dt_companion(lvds);
done:
--
2.7.4
___
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
