[PATCH v2 13/16] arm64: dts: renesas: r8a77990: Add display output support

[Laurent Pinchart]

Hi Simon,

On Friday, 21 September 2018 10:16:44 EEST Simon Horman wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 04:11:36PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 19 September 2018 11:35:07 EEST Simon Horman wrote:
> >> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 11:59:32AM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 17 September 2018 11:54:04 EEST Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, 17 September 2018 11:47:15 EEST Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, 17 September 2018 11:14:20 EEST Simon Horman wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 09:50:55AM +0200, Simon Horman wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 12:10:43PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>>>>>>> The R8A77990 (E3) platform has one RGB output and two LVDS
> >>>>>>>> outputs connected to the DU. Add the DT nodes for the DU, LVDS
> >>>>>>>> encoders and supporting VSP and FCP.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart
> >>>>>>>> <laurent.pinchart+renesas at ideasonboard.com>
> >>>>>>>> Tested-by: Jacopo Mondi <jacopo+renesas at jmondi.org>
> >>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a77990.dtsi | 167 +++++++++++++++++
> >>>>>>>>  1 file changed, 167 insertions(+)
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a77990.dtsi
> >>>>>>>> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a77990.dtsi index
> >>>>>>>> abb14af76c0e..600074ca3ee5 100644
> >>>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a77990.dtsi
> >>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a77990.dtsi
> > 
> > [snip]
> > 
> >>>>>>>> +		lvds0: lvds-encoder at feb90000 {
> >>>>>>>> +			compatible = "renesas,r8a77990-lvds";
> >>>>>>>> +			reg = <0 0xfeb90000 0 0x20>;
> >>>>>>>> +			clocks = <&cpg CPG_MOD 727>;
> >>>>>>>> +			power-domains = <&sysc R8A77990_PD_ALWAYS_ON>;
> >>>>>>>> +			resets = <&cpg 727>;
> >>>>>>>> +			status = "disabled";
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> +			ports {
> >>>>>>>> +				#address-cells = <1>;
> >>>>>>>> +				#size-cells = <0>;
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> +				port at 0 {
> >>>>>>>> +					reg = <0>;
> >>>>>>>> +					lvds0_in: endpoint {
> >>>>>>>> +						remote-endpoint = <&du_out_lvds0>;
> >>>>>>>> +					};
> >>>>>>>> +				};
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> +				port at 1 {
> >>>>>>>> +					reg = <1>;
> >>>>>>>> +					lvds0_out: endpoint {
> >>>>>>>> +					};
> >>>>>>>> +				};
> >>>>>>>> +			};
> >>>>>>>> +		};
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> +		lvds1: lvds-encoder at feb90100 {
> >>>>>>>> +			compatible = "renesas,r8a77990-lvds";
> >>>>>>>> +			reg = <0 0xfeb90100 0 0x20>;
> >>>>>>>> +			clocks = <&cpg CPG_MOD 727>;
> >>>>>>>> +			power-domains = <&sysc R8A77990_PD_ALWAYS_ON>;
> >>>>>>>> +			resets = <&cpg 726>;
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Also, is the missmatch between the index for the clock and reset
> >>>>>> intentional?
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> It is. According to the datasheet, the two LVDS encoders have
> >>>>> different module stop bits, but share the same reset (lovely
> >>>>> hardware design, it will be fun to support that in the driver :-S).
> >>>> 
> >>>> Sorry, I got it wrong. it's bit 725 that is shared between the two
> >>>> LVDS encoders, to reset the two LVDS PLLs together. The encoders
> >>>> themselves still have independent reset bits. I'll fix this.
> >>> 
> >>> And of course it's the clock you were commenting on, not the reset.
> >>> *sigh*
> >>> 
> >>> According to the datasheets the two LVDS encoders share one MSTP.
> >>> Whether that's a mistake in the documentation or not I can't tell yet,
> >>> as I have only tested LVDS0.
> >> 
> >> Could we follow-up with the HW team?
> >> I'm not opposed to taking the patch with this portion as-is
> >> but it would be good to clarify this somehow.
> > 
> > I tried setting the clock to MSTP 726, and I then get vblank interrupt
> > timeouts. Furthermore I've now tested the LVDS1 output with a display
> > panel, and while I still can't get the backlight to work, the panel
> > displays the correct image with MSTP 727. I thus conclude that the above
> > is correct.
> 
> Thanks for the follow-up, that sounds reasonable to me.
> 
> Am I correct in thinking a v3 of this patchset is on its way regardless?

Yes, you're correct.

> >>>>>>>> +			status = "disabled";
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> +			ports {
> >>>>>>>> +				#address-cells = <1>;
> >>>>>>>> +				#size-cells = <0>;
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> +				port at 0 {
> >>>>>>>> +					reg = <0>;
> >>>>>>>> +					lvds1_in: endpoint {
> >>>>>>>> +						remote-endpoint = <&du_out_lvds1>;
> >>>>>>>> +					};
> >>>>>>>> +				};
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> +				port at 1 {
> >>>>>>>> +					reg = <1>;
> >>>>>>>> +					lvds1_out: endpoint {
> >>>>>>>> +					};
> >>>>>>>> +				};
> >>>>>>>> +			};
> >>>>>>>> +		};

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart