[RFC V2 0/3] drm/bridge: panel and chaining

Tue May 13 04:09:27 PDT 2014

On 05/12/2014 02:45 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 3:06 AM, Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda at samsung.com> wrote:
>> On 05/09/2014 05:05 PM, Ajay kumar wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Rob Clark <robdclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 5:08 AM, Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda at samsung.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 05/08/2014 08:24 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 2:41 AM, Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda at samsung.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 05/05/2014 09:52 PM, Ajay Kumar wrote:
>>>>>>>> This patchset is based on exynos-drm-next-todo branch of Inki Dae's tree at:
>>>>>>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/daeinki/drm-exynos.git
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have just put up Rob's and Sean's idea of chaining up the bridges
>>>>>>>> in code, and have implemented basic panel controls as a chained bridge.
>>>>>>>> This works well with ptn3460 bridge chip on exynos5250-snow board.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Still need to make use of standard list calls and figure out proper way
>>>>>>>> of deleting the bridge chain. So, this is just a rough version.
>>>>>>> As I understand this patchset tries to solve two things:
>>>>>>> 1. Implement panel as drm_bridge, to ease support for hardware chains:
>>>>>>> Crtc -> Encoder -> Bridge -> Panel
>>>>>>> 2. Add support to drm_bridge chaining, to allow software chains:
>>>>>>> drm_crtc -> drm_encoder -> drm_bridge -> drm_bridge,panel
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is done using Russian doll schema, ops from the bridge calls the same
>>>>>>> ops from the next bridge and the next bridge ops can do the same.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This schema means that all the bridges including the last one are seen
>>>>>>> from the drm core point of view as a one big drm_bridge. Additionally in
>>>>>>> this particular case, the first bridge (ptn3460) implements connector
>>>>>>> so it is hard to guess what is the location of the 2nd bridge in video
>>>>>>> stream chain, sometimes it is after the connector, sometimes before.
>>>>>>> All this is quite confusing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But if you look at the bridge from upstream video interface point of
>>>>>>> view it is just a panel, edp panel in case of ptn3460, ie ptn3460 on its
>>>>>>> video input side acts as a panel. On the output side it expects a panel,
>>>>>>> lvds panel in this case.
>>>>>> tbh, this is mostly about what we call it.  Perhaps "bridge" isn't the
>>>>>> best name.. I wouldn't object to changing it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But my thinking was to leave in drm_panel_funcs things that are just
>>>>>> needed by the connector (get_modes().. and maybe some day we need
>>>>>> detect/etc).  Then leave everything else in drm_bridge_funcs.  A panel
>>>>>> could (if needed) implement both interfaces.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is basically the same as what you are proposing, but without
>>>>>> renaming bridge to panel ;-)
>>>>> Good to hear that. However there are points which are not clear for me.
>>>>> But first lets clarify names, I will use panel and bridge words
>>>>> to describe the hardware, and drm_panel, drm_bridge to describe the
>>>>> software interfaces.
>>>>>
>>>>> What bothers me:
>>>>> 1. You want to leave connector related callbacks in drm_panel and
>>>>> the rest in drm_bridge. In case of ptn3460 it does not work, ptn3460
>>>>> must implement connector internally because of this limitation. I guess
>>>>> it is quite typical bridge. This problem does not exists in case
>>>>> of using drm_panel for ptn3460.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. drm_bridge is attached to the encoder, this and the callback order
>>>>> suggests the video data flow should be as below:
>>>>> drm_crtc -> drm_encoder [-> drm_bridge] -> drm_connector [-> drm_panel]
>>>>>
>>>>> ptn3460 implements drm_bridge and drm_connector so it suggests its
>>>>> drm_bridge should be the last one, so there should be no place to add
>>>>> lvds panel implemented as a drm_bridge after it, as it is done in this
>>>>> patchset.
>>>>>
>>>>> Additionally it clearly shows that there should be two categories of
>>>>> drm_bridges - non-terminal and terminal.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. drm_dev uses all-or-nothing approach, ie. it will start only when all
>>>>> its components are up. It simplifies synchronization but is quite
>>>>> fragile - the whole drm will be down due to error in some of its components.
>>>>> For this reason I prefer drm_panel as it is not real drm component
>>>>> it can be attached/detached to/from drm_connector anytime. I am not
>>>>> really sure but drm_bridge does not allow for that.
>>>> So I do think we need to stick to this all-or-nothing approach for
>>>> anything that is visible to userspace
>>>> (drm_{plane,crtc,encoder,connector}).  We don't currently have a way
>>>> to "hotplug" those so I don't see a real smooth upgrade path to add
>>>> that in a backwards compatible way that won't cause problems with old
>>>> userspace.
>>>>
>>>> But, that said, we have more flexibility with things not visible to
>>>> userspace (drm_{panel,bridge}).  I'm not sure how much we want to
>>>> allow things to be completely dynamic (we already have some hard
>>>> enough locking fun).  But proposals/rfcs/etc welcome.
>>>>
>>>> I guess I'm not completely familiar w/ ptn3460, but the fact that it
>>>> needs to implement drm_connector makes me a bit suspicious.  Seems
>>>> like a symptom of missing things in drm_panel_funcs.  It would be
>>>> better to always create the connector statically, and just have
>>>> _detect() -> disconnected if panel==NULL.
>> ptn3460 has been implemented using drm_bridge and drm_connector, not by
>> me, to be clear :)
> sure, and afaiu it was adapted from a pre-bridge implementation on
> chromeos tree.  So between that, and the fact that bridge and panel
> are relatively new, it is not unexpected that some
> evolution/refactoring will happen as we go.
>
>> And to make it more clear from what I see ptn3460 exposes following ops:
>> - pre_enable (via drm_bridge).
>> - disable (via drm_bridge),
>> - get_modes (via drm_connector).
> sure, this is why I'm leaning towards saying that drm_panel_funcs
> should be anything a connector needs that a bridge does not need (to
> avoid putting fxn ptrs in drm_bridge_funcs which don't make sense for
> a pure bridge)
>
>> Other ops are exposed just to fulfill requirements of drm frameworks, I
>> guess.
>>
>>
>>> This is something which only Sean can answer!
>>> I guess he implemented ptn3460 as connector thinking that bridge would
>>> be the last
>>> entity in the video pipeline. If that's a real problem, we can still
>>> move out the
>>> connector part.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Ajay
>> The question is how it can be implemented using only drm_bridge.
> I'm not entirely sure I understand why.  I think you would want to
> have a ptn3460 bridge (pure bridge) + chaining + foo_panel which has
> it's bridge interface chained up to ptn3460 and a panel interface
> passed to the connector.
>
> (At some point, maybe it makes sense to have a generic
> drm_panel_connector which drivers can re-use to avoid duplicating the
> connector code, but that is an implementation detail.)
>
>>>>> Real life example to show importance of it: I have a phone with MIPI-DSI
>>>>> panel and HDMI. Due to initialization issues HDMI bridge driver
>>>>> sometimes fails during probe and the drmdev do not start. Of course this
>>>>> is development stage so I have serial console I can diagnose the
>>>>> problem, disable HDMI, fix the problem, etc...
>>>>> But what happens in case of end-user. He will see black screen - bricked
>>>>> phone. In case the bridge will be implemented using drm_panel
>>>>> he will have working phone with broken HDMI, much better.
>>>> well, tbh, I don't think an end-user will see the device if hdmi were broken ;-)
>> It can break also during phone utilization.
>>
>>>> I suppose if bridge/panel where loaded dynamically (or at least after
>>>> drm device and drm_{connector,encoder,etc} are created, it would help
>>>> a bit here.  I'd kinda hope that isn't the only benefit/reason to make
>>>> things more dynamic.  Especially if we allow bridges/panels to be
>>>> unloaded.. (just loading them dynamically doesn't seem as scary from
>>>> locking perspective)
>>>>
>>>>> 4. And the last thing, it is more about the concept/design. drm_bridge,
>>>>> drm_hw_block suggests that those interfaces describes the whole device:
>>>>> bridge, panel, whatever.
>>>> hmm, I don't think this is the case.  I can easily see things like:
>>>>
>>>>   struct foo_panel {
>>>>     struct drm_panel base;
>>>>     struct drm_bridge bridge;
>>>>     ...
>>>>   }
>>>>
>>>> where a panel implementation implements both panel and bridge.  In
>>>> fact that is kinda what I was encouraging.
>> I guess it can work, but I see it sub-optimal. In general, looking on
>> the hardware
>> the same video data goes to the panel and to the bridge (if they are of
>> the same type of course),
>> I do not know why it couldn't be mapped to software interfaces. For
>> example drm_sink, as I described
>> previously (now it is cited below).
> I'm not entirely sure why letting a panel implement multiple different
> interfaces (where needed) is suboptimal.  It seems more sub-optimal to
> put panel related fxns which are only applicable to panels in
> drm_bridge_funcs.

foo implemented using drm_panel and drm_bridge seems to me less optimal
than foo implemented with the same functionality but using drm_panel only.

>
> Well, my initial reaction when you start talking about drm_src and
> drm_sinks is that this can quickly get over-designed.  I'm not trying
> to turn kms into v4l2 unless there is a good reason.  But maybe I'm
> assuming too much about what you are proposing.

OK, lesson learned: avoid using word sink :)

Regards
Andrzej

>
> BR,
> -R
>
>> Regards
>> Andrzej
>>
>>>> BR,
>>>> -R
>>>>
>>>>> In my approach I have an interface
>>>>> to describe only one video input port of the device. And drm_panel is
>>>>> in fact misleading name, drm_sink may be better. So real panel
>>>>> would implement drm_sink interface. Bridge would implement drm_sink
>>>>> interface and it will request other drm_sink interface, to interact with
>>>>> the panel which is after it.
>>>>> This approach seems to me more flexible. Beside things I have described
>>>>> above it will allow to implement also more complicated devices, dsi
>>>>> hubs, video mixers, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Andrzej
>>>>>
>>>>>> BR,
>>>>>> -R
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So why not implement ptn3460 bridge as drm_panel which internally uses
>>>>>>> another drm_panel. With this approach everything fits much better.
>>>>>>> You do not need those (pre|post)_(enable|disable) calls, you do not need
>>>>>>> to implement connector in the bridge and you have a driver following
>>>>>>> linux driver model. And no single bit changed in drm core.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have implemented this way DSI/LVDS bridge, it was sent as RFC [1][2].
>>>>>>> It was not accepted as Inki preferred drm_bridge but as I see the
>>>>>>> problems with drm_bridges I have decide to attract attention to much
>>>>>>> more cleaner solution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1]: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.devicetree/61559
>>>>>>> [2]: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.samsung-soc/27044
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>> Andrzej
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ajay Kumar (3):
>>>>>>>>   [RFC V2 1/3] drm: implement chaining of drm bridges
>>>>>>>>   [RFC V2 2/3] drm/bridge: add a dummy panel driver to support lvds bridges
>>>>>>>>   [RFC V2 3/3] drm/bridge: ptn3460: support bridge chaining
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  .../bindings/drm/bridge/bridge_panel.txt           |  45 ++++
>>>>>>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/Kconfig                     |   6 +
>>>>>>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/Makefile                    |   1 +
>>>>>>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/bridge_panel.c              | 240 +++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ptn3460.c                   |  21 +-
>>>>>>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c                         |  13 +-
>>>>>>>>  include/drm/bridge/bridge_panel.h                  |  37 ++++
>>>>>>>>  include/drm/drm_crtc.h                             |   2 +
>>>>>>>>  8 files changed, 360 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/drm/bridge/bridge_panel.txt
>>>>>>>>  create mode 100644 drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/bridge_panel.c
>>>>>>>>  create mode 100644 include/drm/bridge/bridge_panel.h
>>>>>>>>