Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-85742-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Message-ID: <6470960a-dbe8-43ca-889a-b5a7cc934569@quicinc.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 13:49:34 -0800
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] Support for Simulated Panels
Content-Language: en-US
To: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>,
        Abhinav Kumar
	<quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
        "Neil
 Armstrong" <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>,
        Thomas Zimmermann
	<tzimmermann@suse.de>,
        Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>, <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "David
 Airlie" <airlied@gmail.com>,
        Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>,
        Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        "Krzysztof
 Kozlowski" <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND
 FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20240116-jz-test-sim-panel-v1-0-f9511f46c9c7@quicinc.com>
 <x6wi5xnihnbpqsujjfjfw3ft6njncruta5l3xa44pds5oxmdkw@mmvv4bciy65s>
 <87cyu0qn81.fsf@intel.com> <e1f10583-1d5b-fdac-24bf-098a0ba06241@quicinc.com>
 <hhmbghooegclx3jbsx2neryligk3mj77lq7gns5xegags5ltoz@acdu6hssqwlw>
 <99705d73-abcf-6d41-3d50-757e706cf1fc@quicinc.com>
 <Zbi4-S49CWlUkO__@phenom.ffwll.local>
 <gs634bhdctmpxhhdjw3bddirvc6ex7fwdmy4xr4pygyibvmp5g@zfouf76tmti2>
From: Jessica Zhang <quic_jesszhan@quicinc.com>
In-Reply-To: <gs634bhdctmpxhhdjw3bddirvc6ex7fwdmy4xr4pygyibvmp5g@zfouf76tmti2>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On 2/2/2024 2:15 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 09:53:13AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>>>>>> Wouldn't it be simpler if we had a vkms-like panel that we could either
>>>>>>> configure from DT or from debugfs that would just be registered the
>>>>>>> usual way and would be the only panel we register?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, we need to have validate actual hardware pipeline with the simulated
>>>>> panel. With vkms, actual display pipeline will not be validated. With
>>>>> incorrect display pipeline misconfigurations arising from different panel
>>>>> combinations, this can easily be caught with any existing IGT CRC testing.
>>>>> In addition, all performance related bugs can also be easily caught by
>>>>> simulating high resolution displays.
>>>>
>>>> That's not what I meant. What I meant was that something like a
>>>> user-configurable, generic, panel driver would be a good idea. Just like
>>>> vkms (with the debugfs patches) is for a full blown KMS device.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Let me respond for both this question and the one below from you/Jani.
>>>
>>> Certainly having user-configurable information is a goal here. The end-goal
>>> is to make everything there in the existing panels such as below like I
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 1) Display resolution with timings (drm_display_mode)
>>> 2) Compression/non-compression
>>> 3) Command mode/Video mode
>>> 4) MIPI mode flags
>>> 5) DCS commands for panel enable/disable and other panel sequences
>>> 6) Power-up/Power-down sequence for the panel
>>>
>>> But, we also have to see what all is feasible today from the DRM fwk
>>> standpoint. There are some limitations about what is boot-time configurable
>>> using bootparams and what is runtime configurable (across a modeset) using
>>> debugfs.
>>>
>>> 1) Today, everything part of struct mipi_dsi_device needs to be available at
>>> boot time from what I can see as we need that while calling
>>> mipi_dsi_attach(). So for that we went with boot-params.
>>>
>>> 2) For the list of modes, we can move this to a debugfs like
>>> "populate_modes" which the client using a sim panel can call before picking
>>> a mode and triggering a commit.
>>>
>>> But we need to have some default mode and configuration.
>>
>> Uh, at the risk of sounding a bit like I'm just chasing the latest
>> buzzwords, but this sounds like something that's screaming for ebpf.
> 
> I make a half-joke to Jani on IRC about it, but I was also being
> half-serious. If the goal we want to have is to fully emulate any panel
> variation, ebpf really looks like the best and most flexible way
> forward.

Hi Maxime and Daniel,

For our current sim panel requirements, we can go with implementing the 
configfs first then add ebpf if requirements get more complex.

Thanks,

Jessica Zhang

> 
> Maxime