Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 6 May 2020 00:14:01 +0300
From:   Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Cc:     Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@samsung.com>,
        Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>,
        Rob Clark <robdclark@chromium.org>,
        Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
        David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@siol.net>,
        Jonas Karlman <jonas@kwiboo.se>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: Implement lane reordering +
 polarity
Message-ID: <20200505211401.GC6094@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
References: <20200504213624.1.Ibc8eeddcee94984a608d6900b46f9ffde4045da4@changeid>
 <20200505082436.GD9658@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
 <CAD=FV=WjUpwu5204K8yHzqsJv4vQX5S5CArH1Kj_kqjhZzTc9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200505210609.GA6094@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
 <CAD=FV=UnGOYh8JX2=fEAqPN7wqANc0QevTirNO-WUDYMPqXcrg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAD=FV=UnGOYh8JX2=fEAqPN7wqANc0QevTirNO-WUDYMPqXcrg@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Doug,

On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 02:12:20PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 2:06 PM Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 10:59:30AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 1:24 AM Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>> On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 09:36:31PM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> >>>> The ti-sn65dsi86 MIPI DSI to eDP bridge chip supports arbitrary
> >>>> remapping of eDP lanes and also polarity inversion.  Both of these
> >>>> features have been described in the device tree bindings for the
> >>>> device since the beginning but were never implemented in the driver.
> >>>> Implement both of them.
> >>>>
> >>>> Part of this change also allows you to (via the same device tree
> >>>> bindings) specify to use fewer than the max number of DP lanes that
> >>>> the panel reports.  This could be useful if your display supports more
> >>>> lanes but only a few are hooked up on your board.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> This patch is based upon my my outstanding series[1] not because there
> >>>> is any real requirement but simply to avoid merge conflicts.  I
> >>>> believe that my previous series is ready to land.  If, however, you'd
> >>>> prefer that I rebase this patch somewhere atop something else then
> >>>> please shout.
> >>>>
> >>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200430194617.197510-1-dianders@chromium.org
> >>>>
> >>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c | 75 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> >>>>  1 file changed, 62 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
> >>>> index 1a125423eb07..52cca54b525f 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
> >>>> @@ -50,8 +50,12 @@
> >>>>  #define SN_CHA_VERTICAL_BACK_PORCH_REG               0x36
> >>>>  #define SN_CHA_HORIZONTAL_FRONT_PORCH_REG    0x38
> >>>>  #define SN_CHA_VERTICAL_FRONT_PORCH_REG              0x3A
> >>>> +#define SN_LN_ASSIGN_REG                     0x59
> >>>> +#define  LN_ASSIGN_WIDTH                     2
> >>>>  #define SN_ENH_FRAME_REG                     0x5A
> >>>>  #define  VSTREAM_ENABLE                              BIT(3)
> >>>> +#define  LN_POLRS_OFFSET                     4
> >>>> +#define  LN_POLRS_MASK                               0xf0
> >>>>  #define SN_DATA_FORMAT_REG                   0x5B
> >>>>  #define  BPP_18_RGB                          BIT(0)
> >>>>  #define SN_HPD_DISABLE_REG                   0x5C
> >>>> @@ -98,6 +102,7 @@
> >>>>
> >>>>  #define SN_REGULATOR_SUPPLY_NUM              4
> >>>>
> >>>> +#define SN_MAX_DP_LANES                      4
> >>>>  #define SN_NUM_GPIOS                 4
> >>>>
> >>>>  /**
> >>>> @@ -115,6 +120,8 @@
> >>>>   * @enable_gpio:  The GPIO we toggle to enable the bridge.
> >>>>   * @supplies:     Data for bulk enabling/disabling our regulators.
> >>>>   * @dp_lanes:     Count of dp_lanes we're using.
> >>>> + * @ln_assign:    Value to program to the LN_ASSIGN register.
> >>>> + * @ln_polr:      Value for the 4-bit LN_POLRS field of SN_ENH_FRAME_REG.
> >>>>   *
> >>>>   * @gchip:        If we expose our GPIOs, this is used.
> >>>>   * @gchip_output: A cache of whether we've set GPIOs to output.  This
> >>>> @@ -140,6 +147,8 @@ struct ti_sn_bridge {
> >>>>       struct gpio_desc                *enable_gpio;
> >>>>       struct regulator_bulk_data      supplies[SN_REGULATOR_SUPPLY_NUM];
> >>>>       int                             dp_lanes;
> >>>> +     u8                              ln_assign;
> >>>> +     u8                              ln_polrs;
> >>>>
> >>>>       struct gpio_chip                gchip;
> >>>>       DECLARE_BITMAP(gchip_output, SN_NUM_GPIOS);
> >>>> @@ -707,26 +716,20 @@ static void ti_sn_bridge_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge)
> >>>>       int dp_rate_idx;
> >>>>       unsigned int val;
> >>>>       int ret = -EINVAL;
> >>>> +     int max_dp_lanes;
> >>>>
> >>>> -     /*
> >>>> -      * Run with the maximum number of lanes that the DP sink supports.
> >>>> -      *
> >>>> -      * Depending use cases, we might want to revisit this later because:
> >>>> -      * - It's plausible that someone may have run fewer lines to the
> >>>> -      *   sink than the sink actually supports, assuming that the lines
> >>>> -      *   will just be driven at a higher rate.
> >>>> -      * - The DP spec seems to indicate that it's more important to minimize
> >>>> -      *   the number of lanes than the link rate.
> >>>> -      *
> >>>> -      * If we do revisit, it would be important to measure the power impact.
> >>>> -      */
> >>>> -     pdata->dp_lanes = ti_sn_get_max_lanes(pdata);
> >>>> +     max_dp_lanes = ti_sn_get_max_lanes(pdata);
> >>>> +     pdata->dp_lanes = min(pdata->dp_lanes, max_dp_lanes);
> >>>>
> >>>>       /* DSI_A lane config */
> >>>>       val = CHA_DSI_LANES(4 - pdata->dsi->lanes);
> >>>>       regmap_update_bits(pdata->regmap, SN_DSI_LANES_REG,
> >>>>                          CHA_DSI_LANES_MASK, val);
> >>>>
> >>>> +     regmap_write(pdata->regmap, SN_LN_ASSIGN_REG, pdata->ln_assign);
> >>>> +     regmap_update_bits(pdata->regmap, SN_ENH_FRAME_REG, LN_POLRS_MASK,
> >>>> +                        pdata->ln_polrs << LN_POLRS_OFFSET);
> >>>> +
> >>>>       /* set dsi clk frequency value */
> >>>>       ti_sn_bridge_set_dsi_rate(pdata);
> >>>>
> >>>> @@ -1063,6 +1066,50 @@ static int ti_sn_setup_gpio_controller(struct ti_sn_bridge *pdata)
> >>>>       return ret;
> >>>>  }
> >>>>
> >>>> +static void ti_sn_bridge_parse_lanes(struct ti_sn_bridge *pdata,
> >>>> +                                  struct device_node *np)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> +     u32 lane_assignments[SN_MAX_DP_LANES] = { 0, 1, 2, 3 };
> >>>> +     u32 lane_polarities[SN_MAX_DP_LANES] = { };
> >>>> +     struct device_node *endpoint;
> >>>> +     u8 ln_assign = 0;
> >>>> +     u8 ln_polrs = 0;
> >>>> +     int dp_lanes;
> >>>> +     int i;
> >>>> +
> >>>> +     /*
> >>>> +      * Read config from the device tree about lane remapping and lane
> >>>> +      * polarities.  These are optional and we assume identity map and
> >>>> +      * normal polarity if nothing is specified.  It's OK to specify just
> >>>> +      * data-lanes but not lane-polarities but not vice versa.
> >>>> +      */
> >>>> +     endpoint = of_graph_get_endpoint_by_regs(np, 1, -1);
> >>>
> >>> Shouldn't you check for endpoint == NULL and fail probe if it is ?
> >>
> >> I will if you feel strongly, but I don't think it's necessary.  Specifically:
> >>
> >> 1. By design of_property_count_u32_elems() will return an error if
> >> passed a NULL node pointer.
> >>
> >> 2. When we see an error this function will just init things to defaults.
> >>
> >> 3. Later code which really needs the endpoint to hook things up
> >> properly will catch the error and yell.
> >>
> >> ...so while I could add a yell here it doesn't seem like it gains much.
> >
> > As long as it doesn't crash and we eventually catch the error I'm fine.
> > I usually try to catch them early as otherwise it gets harder to make
> > sure all code paths are sanitized. Up to you.
> 
> OK, I'll leave it as-is for now unless someone else chimes in and puts
> my opinion in the minority or unless you change your mind and decide
> you really hate the way I'm doing it.
> 
> 
> >>>> +     dp_lanes = of_property_count_u32_elems(endpoint, "data-lanes");
> >>>> +     if (dp_lanes > 0) {
> >>>> +             of_property_read_u32_array(endpoint, "data-lanes",
> >>>> +                                        lane_assignments, dp_lanes);
> >>>> +             of_property_read_u32_array(endpoint, "lane-polarities",
> >>>> +                                        lane_polarities, dp_lanes);
> >>>
> >>> Similarly, with a buggy DT, you may have a buffer overrun here. I would
> >>> first check that dp_lanes <= SN_MAX_DP_LANES and error out otherwise.
> >>
> >> I will definitely add that.  Buffer overrun is no bueno.
> >>
> >>>> +     } else {
> >>>> +             dp_lanes = SN_MAX_DP_LANES;
> >>>> +     }
> >>>> +
> >>>> +     /*
> >>>> +      * Convert into register format.  Loop over all lanes even if
> >>>> +      * data-lanes had fewer elements so that we nicely initialize
> >>>> +      * the LN_ASSIGN register.
> >>>> +      */
> >>>> +     for (i = SN_MAX_DP_LANES - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
> >>>> +             ln_assign = ln_assign << LN_ASSIGN_WIDTH | lane_assignments[i];
> >>>> +             ln_polrs = ln_polrs << 1 | lane_polarities[i];
> >>>> +     }
> >>>
> >>> The datasheet documents the lane remapping register as allowing pretty
> >>> much any combination, but "Table 12. Logical to Physical Supported
> >>> Combinations" only documents a subset (for instance data-lanes = <2 3>
> >>> isn't allowed in that table). Should we guard against invalid
> >>> configurations ?
> >>
> >> As I understand it, in general standard kernel policy is to not sanity
> >> check the DT _too_ much.  This feels a bit on the border.  It's up to
> >> the person designing the board and writing the dts to not get things
> >> like this wrong just like it's up to them to make sure they've setup
> >> the i2c pins for our bus w/ the right pullups, configured our
> >> interrupt properly, not overvolted things, put in the correct address
> >> for MMIO, etc.
> >>
> >> I wrote this code (untested) and it feels a bit much:
> >>
> >>   if (dp_lanes == 1) {
> >>     if (lane_assignments[0] == 1) {
> >>       pr_warn("Lane 0 to physical pin 1 not suggested\n");
> >>     } else if (lane_assignments[0] != 0) {
> >>       pr_err("Unsupported logical to physical pin mapping\n");
> >>       return -EINVAL;
> >>     }
> >>   } else if (dp_lanes == 2 || dp_lanes == 4) {
> >>     u8 good_mask = dp_lanes == 2 ? 0x3 : 0xf;
> >>     u8 mask = 0;
> >>
> >>     for (i = 0; i < dp_lanes; i++)
> >>       mask |= BIT(lane_assignments[i])
> >>
> >>     if (mask != good_mask) {
> >>       pr_err("Unsupported logical to physical pin mapping\n");
> >>       return -EINVAL;
> >>     }
> >>   } else {
> >>     pr_err("Invalid number of DP lanes: %d\n", dp_lanes);
> >>   }
> >>
> >> If you feel strongly I'll add it to the next version.  Does anyone
> >> else have any opinions of whether they'd like all that checking or
> >> whether we should just trust the person designing the hardware and
> >> writing the device tree to put the right values in?
> >
> > If we don't want to test that, I would at least document it in the DT
> > bindings. It will be a good occasion to switch the bindings to YAML ;-)
> 
> Interesting that you bring this up.  Conversion to yaml is sitting
> waiting to land (or additional review comments):
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200430124442.v4.4.Ifcdc4ecb12742a27862744ee1e8753cb95a38a7f@changeid/

I'll have a look.

> I'll add this documentation into the comments of the yaml, but I'm not
> going to try to implement enforcement at the yaml level.

Why not ? :-)

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart