[RFC, 3/3] drm/komeda: Allow non-component drm_bridge only endpoints

[Daniel Vetter]

On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 10:48 AM Russell King - ARM Linux admin
<linux at armlinux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 10:42:10AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 12:41:37PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 10:48:12AM +0000, Brian Starkey wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 10:21:03AM +0000, james qian wang (Arm Technology China) wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 08:20:56AM +0000, Brian Starkey wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 03:07:59AM +0000, james qian wang (Arm Technology China) wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 04:22:07PM +0000, Brian Starkey wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If James is strongly against merging this, maybe we just swap
> > > > > > > > wholesale to bridge? But for me, the pragmatic approach would be this
> > > > > > > > stop-gap.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is a good idea, and I vote +ULONG_MAX :)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > and I also checked tda998x driver, it supports bridge. so swap the
> > > > > > > wholesale to brige is perfect. :)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well, as Mihail wrote, it's definitely not perfect.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Today, if you rmmod tda998x with the DPU driver still loaded,
> > > > > > everything will be unbound gracefully.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If we swap to bridge, then rmmod'ing tda998x (or any other bridge
> > > > > > driver the DPU is using) with the DPU driver still loaded will result
> > > > > > in a crash.
> > > > >
> > > > > I haven't read the bridge code, but seems this is a bug of drm_bridge,
> > > > > since if the bridge is still in using by others, the rmmod should fail
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Correct, but there's no fix for that today. You can also take a look
> > > > at the thread linked from Mihail's cover letter.
> > > >
> > > > > And personally opinion, if the bridge doesn't handle the dependence.
> > > > > for us:
> > > > >
> > > > > - add such support to bridge
> > > >
> > > > That would certainly be helpful. I don't know if there's consensus on
> > > > how to do that.
> > > >
> > > > >   or
> > > > > - just do the insmod/rmmod in correct order.
> > > > >
> > > > > > So, there really are proper benefits to sticking with the component
> > > > > > code for tda998x, which is why I'd like to understand why you're so
> > > > > > against this patch?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This change handles two different connectors in komeda internally, compare
> > > > > with one interface, it increases the complexity, more risk of bug and more
> > > > > cost of maintainance.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well, it's only about how to bind the drivers - two different methods
> > > > of binding, not two different connectors. I would argue that carrying
> > > > our out-of-tree patches to support both platforms is a larger
> > > > maintenance burden.
> > > >
> > > > Honestly this looks like a win-win to me. We get the superior approach
> > > > when its supported, and still get to support bridges which are more
> > > > common.
> > > >
> > > > As/when improvements are made to the bridge code we can remove the
> > > > component bits and not lose anything.
> > >
> > > There was an idea a while back about using the device links code to
> > > solve the bridge issue - but at the time the device links code wasn't
> > > up to the job.  I think that's been resolved now, but I haven't been
> > > able to confirm it.  I did propose some patches for bridge at the
> > > time but they probably need updating.
> >
> > I think the only patches that existed where for panel, and we only
> > discussed the bridge case. At least I can only find patches for panel,not
> > bridge, but might be missing something.
>
> I had a patches, which is why I raised the problem with the core:
>
> 6961edfee26d bridge hacks using device links
>
> but it never went further than an experiment at the time because of the
> problems in the core.  As it was a hack, it never got posted.  Seems
> that kernel tree (for the cubox) is still 5.2 based, so has a lot of
> patches and might need updating to a more recent base before anything
> can be tested.


For reference, the panel patch:

https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10364873/

And the huge discussion around bridges, that resulted in Rafael
Wyzocki fixing all the core issues:

https://www.spinics.net/lists/dri-devel/msg201927.html

James, do you want to look into this for bridges?

Cheers, Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch