[PATCH v12 2/5] dt-bindings: msm/dp: add data-lanes and link-frequencies property

[Kuogee Hsieh]

On 12/13/2022 3:06 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Kuogee Hsieh (2022-12-13 13:44:05)
>> Add both data-lanes and link-frequencies property into endpoint
> Why do we care? Please tell us why it's important.
>
>> Changes in v7:
>> -- split yaml out of dtsi patch
>> -- link-frequencies from link rate to symbol rate
>> -- deprecation of old data-lanes property
>>
>> Changes in v8:
>> -- correct Bjorn mail address to kernel.org
>>
>> Changes in v10:
>> -- add menu item to data-lanes and link-frequecnis
>>
>> Changes in v11:
>> -- add endpoint property at port at 1
>>
>> Changes in v12:
>> -- use enum for item at data-lanes and link-frequencies
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kuogee Hsieh <quic_khsieh at quicinc.com>`
>                                                         ^
> Stray ` here? -----------------------------------------/
>
>> ---
>>   .../bindings/display/msm/dp-controller.yaml        | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++--
>>   1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/dp-controller.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/dp-controller.yaml
>> index f2515af..8fb9fa5 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/dp-controller.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/dp-controller.yaml
>> @@ -96,14 +97,37 @@ properties:
>>
>>     ports:
>>       $ref: /schemas/graph.yaml#/properties/ports
>> +
>>       properties:
>>         port at 0:
>> -        $ref: /schemas/graph.yaml#/properties/port
>> +        $ref: "/schemas/graph.yaml#/$defs/port-base"
>>           description: Input endpoint of the controller
>> +        properties:
>> +          endpoint:
>> +            $ref: /schemas/media/video-interfaces.yaml#
>>
>>         port at 1:
>> -        $ref: /schemas/graph.yaml#/properties/port
>> +        $ref: "/schemas/graph.yaml#/$defs/port-base"
> I thought the quotes weren't needed?
>
>>           description: Output endpoint of the controller
>> +        properties:
>> +          endpoint:
>> +            $ref: /schemas/media/video-interfaces.yaml#
> Does this need 'unevaluatedProperties: false' here?
>
>> +            properties:
>> +              data-lanes:
>> +                minItems: 1
>> +                maxItems: 4
>> +                items:
>> +                  enum: [ 0, 1, 2, 3 ]
>> +
>> +              link-frequencies:
>> +                minItems: 1
>> +                maxItems: 4
>> +                items:
>> +                  enum: [ 1620000000, 2700000000, 5400000000, 8100000000 ]
>> +
>> +    required:
>> +      - port at 0
>> +      - port at 1
>>
>>   required:
>>     - compatible
>> @@ -193,6 +217,8 @@ examples:
>>                   reg = <1>;
>>                   endpoint {
>>                       remote-endpoint = <&typec>;
>> +                    data-lanes = <0 1>;
>> +                    link-frequencies = /bits/ 64 <1620000000 2700000000 5400000000 8100000000>;
>>                   };
> So far we haven't used the output port on the DP controller in DT.
>
> I'm still not clear on what we should do in general for DP because
> there's a PHY that actually controls a lane count and lane mapping. In
> my mental model of the SoC, this DP controller's output port is
> connected to the DP PHY, which then sends the DP lanes out of the SoC to
> the next downstream device (i.e. a DP connector or type-c muxer). Having
> a remote-endpoint property with a phandle to typec doesn't fit my mental
> model. I'd expect it to be the typec PHY.
ack
>
> That brings up the question: when we have 2 lanes vs. 4 lanes will we
> duplicate the data-lanes property in the PHY binding? I suspect we'll
> have to. Hopefully that sort of duplication is OK?
Current we have limitation by reserve 2 data lanes for usb2, i am not 
sure duplication to 4 lanes will work automatically.
>
> Similarly, we may have a redriver that limits the link-frequencies
> property further (e.g. only support <= 2.7GHz). Having multiple
> link-frequencies along the graph is OK, right? And isn't the
> link-frequencies property known here by fact that the DP controller
> tells us which SoC this controller is for, and thus we already know the
> supported link frequencies?
>
> Finally, I wonder if we should put any of this in the DP controller's
> output endpoint, or if we can put these sorts of properties in the DP
> PHY binding directly? Can't we do that and then when the DP controller
> tries to set 4 lanes, the PHY immediately fails the call and the link
> training algorithm does its thing and tries fewer lanes? And similarly,
> if link-frequencies were in the PHY's binding, the PHY could fail to set
> those frequencies during link training, returning an error to the DP
> controller, letting the training move on to a lower frequency. If we did
> that this patch series would largely be about modifying the PHY binding,
> updating the PHY driver to enforce constraints, and handling errors
> during link training in the DP controller (which may already be done? I
> didn't check).


phy/pll have different configuration base on link lanes and rate.

it has to be set up before link training can start.

Once link training start, then there are no any interactions between 
controller and phy during link training session.

Link training only happen between dp controller and sink since link 
status is reported by sink (read back from sink's dpcd register directly).

T achieve link symbol locked, link training will start from reduce link 
rate until lowest rate, if it still failed, then it will reduce lanes 
with highest rate and start training  again.

it will repeat same process until lowest lane (one lane), if it still 
failed, then it will give up and declare link training failed.

Therefore I think add data-lanes and link-frequencies properties in the 
DP PHY binding directly will not helps.