[PATCH v6 05/17] drm: bridge: analogix/dp: dynamic parse sync_pol & interlace & dynamic_range
On 12.10.2015 13:09, Yakir Yang wrote: > > > On 10/12/2015 11:51 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 12.10.2015 11:43, Yakir Yang wrote: >>> On 10/12/2015 08:49 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: On 12.10.2015 09:37, Yakir Yang wrote: > Hi Krzysztof, > > On 10/10/2015 11:46 PM, Yakir Yang wrote: >> Both hsync/vsync polarity and interlace mode can be parsed from >> drm display mode, and dynamic_range and ycbcr_coeff can be judge >> by the video code. >> >> But presumably Exynos still relies on the DT properties, so take >> good use of mode_fixup() in to achieve the compatibility hacks. >> >> Signed-off-by: Yakir Yang >> --- >> Changes in v6: None > +of_property_read_u32(dp_node, "hsync-active-high", > + >h_sync_polarity); > +of_property_read_u32(dp_node, "vsync-active-high", > + >v_sync_polarity); > +of_property_read_u32(dp_node, "interlaced", > + >interlaced); > +} > > > Sorry, forget to fix your previous comment here, would > remember to fix it to v7 version, wish v6 would collect > more comment/reviewed/ack. :) Right. You can send a v7 of only this patch. In the same time I would prefer not to chain-reply next version of entire patchset to cover letter of previous version. It confuses me because v6 appears UNDER v4 so I can't really find v6. I see v4 at the top of my email list. >>> Okay, I wish this chain-reply would make people easy to find the >>> previous comments, but actually it is little mess now. I would give >>> up this way to send patchset :) >>> In the same time the patchset is quite big. Put the latest version (with this issue above fixed!) on some repo and link it in cover letter. >>> Yeah, it's quite big now, I would like to back the patchset to previous >>> format, like: >>> >>> ---> [PATCH v6 00/17] Cover letter >>>|> [PATCH v6 01/17] >>>|> [PATCH ..] >>>|> [PATCH v6 05/17] >>> |> [PATCH v7 05/17] >>>|> [PATCH ..] >>>|> [PATCH v6 17/17] >>> >>> Is it right, and can resend the v6 to fix this chain-reply issue with >>> RESEND flag ([PATCH RESEND v6 ...]) ? >>> >>> ---> [PATCH RESEND v6 00/17] Cover letter >>>|> [PATCH RESEND v6 01/17] >>>|> [PATCH ..] >>>|> [PATCH RESEND v6 05/17] >>> |> [PATCH v7 05/17] >>>|> [PATCH ..] >>>|> [PATCH RESEND v6 17/17] >>> >> No, don't resend everything. I mean in this case with such big patchset >> if you want to fix one patch just send one email [PATCH v7 05/17] >> chained to proper id (cover letter or v6-05/17). Add a short note that >> this is resend of only one patch from the set. > > Oh, understand now, just keep this chain-reply no changes for now. > > > [PATCH v4 00/16] Cover letter >|> [PATCH v5 00/17] Covert letter >|> [PATCH ..] >| >|> [PATCH v6 00/17] Covert letter >|> [PATCH v6 01/17] >|> [PATCH ..] >|> [PATCH v6 17/17] >|> [PATCH v7 05/17] Yes, I think it is correct. Maybe just add a note (in patch changelog) that this is v7 of only fifth patch. Best regards, Krzysztof
[PATCH v6 05/17] drm: bridge: analogix/dp: dynamic parse sync_pol & interlace & dynamic_range
On 12.10.2015 11:43, Yakir Yang wrote: > > > On 10/12/2015 08:49 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 12.10.2015 09:37, Yakir Yang wrote: >>> Hi Krzysztof, >>> >>> On 10/10/2015 11:46 PM, Yakir Yang wrote: Both hsync/vsync polarity and interlace mode can be parsed from drm display mode, and dynamic_range and ycbcr_coeff can be judge by the video code. But presumably Exynos still relies on the DT properties, so take good use of mode_fixup() in to achieve the compatibility hacks. Signed-off-by: Yakir Yang --- Changes in v6: None >>> +of_property_read_u32(dp_node, "hsync-active-high", >>> + >h_sync_polarity); >>> +of_property_read_u32(dp_node, "vsync-active-high", >>> + >v_sync_polarity); >>> +of_property_read_u32(dp_node, "interlaced", >>> + >interlaced); >>> +} >>> >>> >>> Sorry, forget to fix your previous comment here, would >>> remember to fix it to v7 version, wish v6 would collect >>> more comment/reviewed/ack. :) >> Right. >> >> You can send a v7 of only this patch. >> >> In the same time I would prefer not to chain-reply next version of >> entire patchset to cover letter of previous version. It confuses me >> because v6 appears UNDER v4 so I can't really find v6. I see v4 at the >> top of my email list. > > Okay, I wish this chain-reply would make people easy to find the > previous comments, but actually it is little mess now. I would give > up this way to send patchset :) > >> In the same time the patchset is quite big. Put the latest version (with >> this issue above fixed!) on some repo and link it in cover letter. > > Yeah, it's quite big now, I would like to back the patchset to previous > format, like: > > ---> [PATCH v6 00/17] Cover letter > |> [PATCH v6 01/17] > |> [PATCH ..] > |> [PATCH v6 05/17] > |> [PATCH v7 05/17] > |> [PATCH ..] > |> [PATCH v6 17/17] > > Is it right, and can resend the v6 to fix this chain-reply issue with > RESEND flag ([PATCH RESEND v6 ...]) ? > > ---> [PATCH RESEND v6 00/17] Cover letter > |> [PATCH RESEND v6 01/17] > |> [PATCH ..] > |> [PATCH RESEND v6 05/17] > |> [PATCH v7 05/17] > |> [PATCH ..] > |> [PATCH RESEND v6 17/17] > No, don't resend everything. I mean in this case with such big patchset if you want to fix one patch just send one email [PATCH v7 05/17] chained to proper id (cover letter or v6-05/17). Add a short note that this is resend of only one patch from the set. Of course you can just wait for some more comments and then send v7 of everything. Best regards, Krzysztof
[PATCH v6 05/17] drm: bridge: analogix/dp: dynamic parse sync_pol & interlace & dynamic_range
On 10/12/2015 11:51 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 12.10.2015 11:43, Yakir Yang wrote: >> On 10/12/2015 08:49 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 12.10.2015 09:37, Yakir Yang wrote: Hi Krzysztof, On 10/10/2015 11:46 PM, Yakir Yang wrote: > Both hsync/vsync polarity and interlace mode can be parsed from > drm display mode, and dynamic_range and ycbcr_coeff can be judge > by the video code. > > But presumably Exynos still relies on the DT properties, so take > good use of mode_fixup() in to achieve the compatibility hacks. > > Signed-off-by: Yakir Yang > --- > Changes in v6: None +of_property_read_u32(dp_node, "hsync-active-high", + >h_sync_polarity); +of_property_read_u32(dp_node, "vsync-active-high", + >v_sync_polarity); +of_property_read_u32(dp_node, "interlaced", + >interlaced); +} Sorry, forget to fix your previous comment here, would remember to fix it to v7 version, wish v6 would collect more comment/reviewed/ack. :) >>> Right. >>> >>> You can send a v7 of only this patch. >>> >>> In the same time I would prefer not to chain-reply next version of >>> entire patchset to cover letter of previous version. It confuses me >>> because v6 appears UNDER v4 so I can't really find v6. I see v4 at the >>> top of my email list. >> Okay, I wish this chain-reply would make people easy to find the >> previous comments, but actually it is little mess now. I would give >> up this way to send patchset :) >> >>> In the same time the patchset is quite big. Put the latest version (with >>> this issue above fixed!) on some repo and link it in cover letter. >> Yeah, it's quite big now, I would like to back the patchset to previous >> format, like: >> >> ---> [PATCH v6 00/17] Cover letter >>|> [PATCH v6 01/17] >>|> [PATCH ..] >>|> [PATCH v6 05/17] >> |> [PATCH v7 05/17] >>|> [PATCH ..] >>|> [PATCH v6 17/17] >> >> Is it right, and can resend the v6 to fix this chain-reply issue with >> RESEND flag ([PATCH RESEND v6 ...]) ? >> >> ---> [PATCH RESEND v6 00/17] Cover letter >>|> [PATCH RESEND v6 01/17] >>|> [PATCH ..] >>|> [PATCH RESEND v6 05/17] >> |> [PATCH v7 05/17] >>|> [PATCH ..] >>|> [PATCH RESEND v6 17/17] >> > No, don't resend everything. I mean in this case with such big patchset > if you want to fix one patch just send one email [PATCH v7 05/17] > chained to proper id (cover letter or v6-05/17). Add a short note that > this is resend of only one patch from the set. Oh, understand now, just keep this chain-reply no changes for now. > [PATCH v4 00/16] Cover letter |> [PATCH v5 00/17] Covert letter |> [PATCH ..] | |> [PATCH v6 00/17] Covert letter |> [PATCH v6 01/17] |> [PATCH ..] |> [PATCH v6 17/17] |> [PATCH v7 05/17] > Of course you can just wait for some more comments and then send v7 of > everything. I would choice to send it now :) Thanks, - Yakir > Best regards, > Krzysztof > > > >
[PATCH v6 05/17] drm: bridge: analogix/dp: dynamic parse sync_pol & interlace & dynamic_range
On 10/12/2015 08:49 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 12.10.2015 09:37, Yakir Yang wrote: >> Hi Krzysztof, >> >> On 10/10/2015 11:46 PM, Yakir Yang wrote: >>> Both hsync/vsync polarity and interlace mode can be parsed from >>> drm display mode, and dynamic_range and ycbcr_coeff can be judge >>> by the video code. >>> >>> But presumably Exynos still relies on the DT properties, so take >>> good use of mode_fixup() in to achieve the compatibility hacks. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Yakir Yang >>> --- >>> Changes in v6: None >> +of_property_read_u32(dp_node, "hsync-active-high", >> + >h_sync_polarity); >> +of_property_read_u32(dp_node, "vsync-active-high", >> + >v_sync_polarity); >> +of_property_read_u32(dp_node, "interlaced", >> + >interlaced); >> +} >> >> >> Sorry, forget to fix your previous comment here, would >> remember to fix it to v7 version, wish v6 would collect >> more comment/reviewed/ack. :) > Right. > > You can send a v7 of only this patch. > > In the same time I would prefer not to chain-reply next version of > entire patchset to cover letter of previous version. It confuses me > because v6 appears UNDER v4 so I can't really find v6. I see v4 at the > top of my email list. Okay, I wish this chain-reply would make people easy to find the previous comments, but actually it is little mess now. I would give up this way to send patchset :) > In the same time the patchset is quite big. Put the latest version (with > this issue above fixed!) on some repo and link it in cover letter. Yeah, it's quite big now, I would like to back the patchset to previous format, like: ---> [PATCH v6 00/17] Cover letter |> [PATCH v6 01/17] |> [PATCH ..] |> [PATCH v6 05/17] |> [PATCH v7 05/17] |> [PATCH ..] |> [PATCH v6 17/17] Is it right, and can resend the v6 to fix this chain-reply issue with RESEND flag ([PATCH RESEND v6 ...]) ? ---> [PATCH RESEND v6 00/17] Cover letter |> [PATCH RESEND v6 01/17] |> [PATCH ..] |> [PATCH RESEND v6 05/17] |> [PATCH v7 05/17] |> [PATCH ..] |> [PATCH RESEND v6 17/17] Thanks :-) - Yakir > > Best regards, > Krzysztof > >> Best regards, >> - Yakir >> >>> Changes in v5: >>> - Switch video timing type to "u32", so driver could use >>> "of_property_read_u32" >>> to get the backword timing values. Krzysztof suggest me that driver >>> could use >>> the "of_property_read_bool" to get backword timing values, but that >>> interfacs >>> would modify the original drm_display_mode timing directly (whether >>> those >>> properties exists or not). >>> >>> Changes in v4: >>> - Provide backword compatibility with samsung. (Krzysztof) >>> >>> Changes in v3: >>> - Dynamic parse video timing info from struct drm_display_mode and >>> struct drm_display_info. (Thierry) >>> >>> Changes in v2: None > > >
[PATCH v6 05/17] drm: bridge: analogix/dp: dynamic parse sync_pol & interlace & dynamic_range
On 12.10.2015 09:37, Yakir Yang wrote: > Hi Krzysztof, > > On 10/10/2015 11:46 PM, Yakir Yang wrote: >> Both hsync/vsync polarity and interlace mode can be parsed from >> drm display mode, and dynamic_range and ycbcr_coeff can be judge >> by the video code. >> >> But presumably Exynos still relies on the DT properties, so take >> good use of mode_fixup() in to achieve the compatibility hacks. >> >> Signed-off-by: Yakir Yang >> --- >> Changes in v6: None > > +of_property_read_u32(dp_node, "hsync-active-high", > + >h_sync_polarity); > +of_property_read_u32(dp_node, "vsync-active-high", > + >v_sync_polarity); > +of_property_read_u32(dp_node, "interlaced", > + >interlaced); > +} > > > Sorry, forget to fix your previous comment here, would > remember to fix it to v7 version, wish v6 would collect > more comment/reviewed/ack. :) Right. You can send a v7 of only this patch. In the same time I would prefer not to chain-reply next version of entire patchset to cover letter of previous version. It confuses me because v6 appears UNDER v4 so I can't really find v6. I see v4 at the top of my email list. In the same time the patchset is quite big. Put the latest version (with this issue above fixed!) on some repo and link it in cover letter. Best regards, Krzysztof > > Best regards, > - Yakir > >> Changes in v5: >> - Switch video timing type to "u32", so driver could use >> "of_property_read_u32" >>to get the backword timing values. Krzysztof suggest me that driver >> could use >>the "of_property_read_bool" to get backword timing values, but that >> interfacs >>would modify the original drm_display_mode timing directly (whether >> those >>properties exists or not). >> >> Changes in v4: >> - Provide backword compatibility with samsung. (Krzysztof) >> >> Changes in v3: >> - Dynamic parse video timing info from struct drm_display_mode and >>struct drm_display_info. (Thierry) >> >> Changes in v2: None
[PATCH v6 05/17] drm: bridge: analogix/dp: dynamic parse sync_pol & interlace & dynamic_range
Hi Krzysztof,
On 10/10/2015 11:46 PM, Yakir Yang wrote:
> Both hsync/vsync polarity and interlace mode can be parsed from
> drm display mode, and dynamic_range and ycbcr_coeff can be judge
> by the video code.
>
> But presumably Exynos still relies on the DT properties, so take
> good use of mode_fixup() in to achieve the compatibility hacks.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yakir Yang
> ---
> Changes in v6: None
+ of_property_read_u32(dp_node, "hsync-active-high",
+>h_sync_polarity);
+ of_property_read_u32(dp_node, "vsync-active-high",
+>v_sync_polarity);
+ of_property_read_u32(dp_node, "interlaced",
+>interlaced);
+}
Sorry, forget to fix your previous comment here, would
remember to fix it to v7 version, wish v6 would collect
more comment/reviewed/ack. :)
Best regards,
- Yakir
> Changes in v5:
> - Switch video timing type to "u32", so driver could use
> "of_property_read_u32"
>to get the backword timing values. Krzysztof suggest me that driver could
> use
>the "of_property_read_bool" to get backword timing values, but that
> interfacs
>would modify the original drm_display_mode timing directly (whether those
>properties exists or not).
>
> Changes in v4:
> - Provide backword compatibility with samsung. (Krzysztof)
>
> Changes in v3:
> - Dynamic parse video timing info from struct drm_display_mode and
>struct drm_display_info. (Thierry)
>
> Changes in v2: None
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c | 148
> +
> drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.h | 8 +-
> drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_reg.c | 14 +-
> 3 files changed, 106 insertions(+), 64 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c
> index 96afb67..9d802ef 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c
> @@ -890,8 +890,8 @@ static void analogix_dp_commit(struct analogix_dp_device
> *dp)
> return;
> }
>
> - ret = analogix_dp_set_link_train(dp, dp->video_info->lane_count,
> - dp->video_info->link_rate);
> + ret = analogix_dp_set_link_train(dp, dp->video_info.lane_count,
> + dp->video_info.link_rate);
> if (ret) {
> dev_err(dp->dev, "unable to do link train\n");
> return;
> @@ -1030,6 +1030,85 @@ static void analogix_dp_bridge_disable(struct
> drm_bridge *bridge)
> dp->dpms_mode = DRM_MODE_DPMS_OFF;
> }
>
> +static void analogix_dp_bridge_mode_set(struct drm_bridge *bridge,
> + struct drm_display_mode *orig_mode,
> + struct drm_display_mode *mode)
> +{
> + struct analogix_dp_device *dp = bridge->driver_private;
> + struct drm_display_info *display_info = >connector->display_info;
> + struct video_info *video = >video_info;
> + struct device_node *dp_node = dp->dev->of_node;
> + int vic;
> +
> + /* Input video interlaces & hsync pol & vsync pol */
> + video->interlaced = !!(mode->flags & DRM_MODE_FLAG_INTERLACE);
> + video->v_sync_polarity = !!(mode->flags & DRM_MODE_FLAG_NVSYNC);
> + video->h_sync_polarity = !!(mode->flags & DRM_MODE_FLAG_NHSYNC);
> +
> + /* Input video dynamic_range & colorimetry */
> + vic = drm_match_cea_mode(mode);
> + if ((vic == 6) || (vic == 7) || (vic == 21) || (vic == 22) ||
> + (vic == 2) || (vic == 3) || (vic == 17) || (vic == 18)) {
> + video->dynamic_range = CEA;
> + video->ycbcr_coeff = COLOR_YCBCR601;
> + } else if (vic) {
> + video->dynamic_range = CEA;
> + video->ycbcr_coeff = COLOR_YCBCR709;
> + } else {
> + video->dynamic_range = VESA;
> + video->ycbcr_coeff = COLOR_YCBCR709;
> + }
> +
> + /* Input vide bpc and color_formats */
> + switch (display_info->bpc) {
> + case 12:
> + video->color_depth = COLOR_12;
> + break;
> + case 10:
> + video->color_depth = COLOR_10;
> + break;
> + case 8:
> + video->color_depth = COLOR_8;
> + break;
> + case 6:
> + video->color_depth = COLOR_6;
> + break;
> + default:
> + video->color_depth = COLOR_8;
> + break;
> + }
> + if (display_info->color_formats & DRM_COLOR_FORMAT_YCRCB444)
> + video->color_space = COLOR_YCBCR444;
> + else if (display_info->color_formats & DRM_COLOR_FORMAT_YCRCB422)
> + video->color_space = COLOR_YCBCR422;
> + else if (display_info->color_formats & DRM_COLOR_FORMAT_RGB444)
> + video->color_space = COLOR_RGB;
> + else
> +
[PATCH v6 05/17] drm: bridge: analogix/dp: dynamic parse sync_pol & interlace & dynamic_range
Both hsync/vsync polarity and interlace mode can be parsed from
drm display mode, and dynamic_range and ycbcr_coeff can be judge
by the video code.
But presumably Exynos still relies on the DT properties, so take
good use of mode_fixup() in to achieve the compatibility hacks.
Signed-off-by: Yakir Yang
---
Changes in v6: None
Changes in v5:
- Switch video timing type to "u32", so driver could use "of_property_read_u32"
to get the backword timing values. Krzysztof suggest me that driver could use
the "of_property_read_bool" to get backword timing values, but that interfacs
would modify the original drm_display_mode timing directly (whether those
properties exists or not).
Changes in v4:
- Provide backword compatibility with samsung. (Krzysztof)
Changes in v3:
- Dynamic parse video timing info from struct drm_display_mode and
struct drm_display_info. (Thierry)
Changes in v2: None
drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c | 148 +
drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.h | 8 +-
drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_reg.c | 14 +-
3 files changed, 106 insertions(+), 64 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c
index 96afb67..9d802ef 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c
@@ -890,8 +890,8 @@ static void analogix_dp_commit(struct analogix_dp_device
*dp)
return;
}
- ret = analogix_dp_set_link_train(dp, dp->video_info->lane_count,
-dp->video_info->link_rate);
+ ret = analogix_dp_set_link_train(dp, dp->video_info.lane_count,
+dp->video_info.link_rate);
if (ret) {
dev_err(dp->dev, "unable to do link train\n");
return;
@@ -1030,6 +1030,85 @@ static void analogix_dp_bridge_disable(struct drm_bridge
*bridge)
dp->dpms_mode = DRM_MODE_DPMS_OFF;
}
+static void analogix_dp_bridge_mode_set(struct drm_bridge *bridge,
+ struct drm_display_mode *orig_mode,
+ struct drm_display_mode *mode)
+{
+ struct analogix_dp_device *dp = bridge->driver_private;
+ struct drm_display_info *display_info = >connector->display_info;
+ struct video_info *video = >video_info;
+ struct device_node *dp_node = dp->dev->of_node;
+ int vic;
+
+ /* Input video interlaces & hsync pol & vsync pol */
+ video->interlaced = !!(mode->flags & DRM_MODE_FLAG_INTERLACE);
+ video->v_sync_polarity = !!(mode->flags & DRM_MODE_FLAG_NVSYNC);
+ video->h_sync_polarity = !!(mode->flags & DRM_MODE_FLAG_NHSYNC);
+
+ /* Input video dynamic_range & colorimetry */
+ vic = drm_match_cea_mode(mode);
+ if ((vic == 6) || (vic == 7) || (vic == 21) || (vic == 22) ||
+ (vic == 2) || (vic == 3) || (vic == 17) || (vic == 18)) {
+ video->dynamic_range = CEA;
+ video->ycbcr_coeff = COLOR_YCBCR601;
+ } else if (vic) {
+ video->dynamic_range = CEA;
+ video->ycbcr_coeff = COLOR_YCBCR709;
+ } else {
+ video->dynamic_range = VESA;
+ video->ycbcr_coeff = COLOR_YCBCR709;
+ }
+
+ /* Input vide bpc and color_formats */
+ switch (display_info->bpc) {
+ case 12:
+ video->color_depth = COLOR_12;
+ break;
+ case 10:
+ video->color_depth = COLOR_10;
+ break;
+ case 8:
+ video->color_depth = COLOR_8;
+ break;
+ case 6:
+ video->color_depth = COLOR_6;
+ break;
+ default:
+ video->color_depth = COLOR_8;
+ break;
+ }
+ if (display_info->color_formats & DRM_COLOR_FORMAT_YCRCB444)
+ video->color_space = COLOR_YCBCR444;
+ else if (display_info->color_formats & DRM_COLOR_FORMAT_YCRCB422)
+ video->color_space = COLOR_YCBCR422;
+ else if (display_info->color_formats & DRM_COLOR_FORMAT_RGB444)
+ video->color_space = COLOR_RGB;
+ else
+ video->color_space = COLOR_RGB;
+
+ /*
+* NOTE: those property parsing code is used for providing backward
+* compatibility for samsung platform.
+* Due to we used the "of_property_read_u32" interfaces, when this
+* property isn't present, the "video_info" can keep the original
+* values and wouldn't be modified.
+*/
+ of_property_read_u32(dp_node, "samsung,color-space",
+>color_space);
+ of_property_read_u32(dp_node, "samsung,dynamic-range",
+>dynamic_range);
+ of_property_read_u32(dp_node, "samsung,ycbcr-coeff",
+
