[PATCH v2 2/4] Revert "drm/panel-edp: Add SDC ATNA45AF01"

[Doug Anderson]

Hi,

On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 8:49 AM Doug Anderson <dianders at chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 6:51 AM Doug Anderson <dianders at chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 6:02 AM Neil Armstrong
> > <neil.armstrong at linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 15/07/2024 14:54, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 02:42:12PM +0200, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> > > >> On 15/07/2024 14:15, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
> > > >>> This reverts commit 8ebb1fc2e69ab8b89a425e402c7bd85e053b7b01.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The panel should be handled through the samsung-atna33xc20 driver for
> > > >>> correct power up timings. Otherwise the backlight does not work correctly.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> We have existing users of this panel through the generic "edp-panel"
> > > >>> compatible (e.g. the Qualcomm X1E80100 CRD), but the screen works only
> > > >>> partially in that configuration: It works after boot but once the screen
> > > >>> gets disabled it does not turn on again until after reboot. It behaves the
> > > >>> same way with the default "conservative" timings, so we might as well drop
> > > >>> the configuration from the panel-edp driver. That way, users with old DTBs
> > > >>> will get a warning and can move to the new driver.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders at chromium.org>
> > > >>> Signed-off-by: Stephan Gerhold <stephan.gerhold at linaro.org>
> > > >>> ---
> > > >>>    drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-edp.c | 2 --
> > > >>>    1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> > > >>>
> > > >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-edp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-edp.c
> > > >>> index 3a574a9b46e7..d2d682385e89 100644
> > > >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-edp.c
> > > >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-edp.c
> > > >>> @@ -1960,8 +1960,6 @@ static const struct edp_panel_entry edp_panels[] = {
> > > >>>     EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('L', 'G', 'D', 0x05af, &delay_200_500_e200_d200, "Unknown"),
> > > >>>     EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('L', 'G', 'D', 0x05f1, &delay_200_500_e200_d200, "Unknown"),
> > > >>> -   EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('S', 'D', 'C', 0x416d, &delay_100_500_e200, "ATNA45AF01"),
> > > >>> -
> > > >>>     EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('S', 'H', 'P', 0x1511, &delay_200_500_e50, "LQ140M1JW48"),
> > > >>>     EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('S', 'H', 'P', 0x1523, &delay_80_500_e50, "LQ140M1JW46"),
> > > >>>     EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('S', 'H', 'P', 0x153a, &delay_200_500_e50, "LQ140T1JH01"),
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> How will we handle current/old crd DT with new kernels ?
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > I think this is answered in the commit message:
> > > >
> > > >>> We have existing users of this panel through the generic "edp-panel"
> > > >>> compatible (e.g. the Qualcomm X1E80100 CRD), but the screen works only
> > > >>> partially in that configuration: It works after boot but once the screen
> > > >>> gets disabled it does not turn on again until after reboot. It behaves the
> > > >>> same way with the default "conservative" timings, so we might as well drop
> > > >>> the configuration from the panel-edp driver. That way, users with old DTBs
> > > >>> will get a warning and can move to the new driver.
> > > >
> > > > Basically with the entry removed, the panel-edp driver will fallback to
> > > > default "conservative" timings when using old DTBs. There will be a
> > > > warning in dmesg, but otherwise the panel will somewhat work just as
> > > > before. I think this is a good way to remind users to upgrade.
> > >
> > > I consider this as a regression
> > >
> > > >
> > > >> Same question for patch 3, thie serie introduces a bindings that won't be valid
> > > >> if we backport patch 3. I don't think patch should be backported, and this patch
> > > >> should be dropped.
> > > >
> > > > There would be a dtbs_check warning, yeah. Functionally, it would work
> > > > just fine. Is that reason enough to keep display partially broken for
> > > > 6.11? We could also apply the minor binding change for 6.11 if needed.
> > >
> > > I don't know how to answer this, I'll let the DT maintainer comment this.
> > >
> > > The problem is I do not think we can pass the whole patchset as fixes
> > > for v6.11, patches 2 & 3 could, patches 1 & 4 definitely can't.
> > >
> > > Neil
> >
> > IMO: patch #3 (dts) and #4 (CONFIG) go through the Qualcomm tree
> > whenever those folks agree to it. If we're worried about the
> > dtbs_check breakage I personally wouldn't mind "Ack"ing patch #1 to go
> > through the Qualcomm tree as long as it made it into 6.11-rc1. I have
> > a hunch that there are going to be more Samsung OLED panels in the
> > future that will need to touch the same file, but if the change is in
> > -rc1 it should make it back into drm-misc quickly, right?
> >
> > Personally I think patch #2 could go in anytime since, as people have
> > said, things are pretty broken today and the worst that happens is
> > that someone gets an extra warning. That would be my preference. That
> > being said, we could also snooze that patch for a month or two and
> > land it later. There's no real hurry.
>
> For now I'm going to snooze this patch for a month just to avoid any
> controversy. I'll plan to apply it (to drm-misc-next) when I see the
> device tree patch land. Since the device tree patch should land as a
> fix that should keep things landing in the correct order. ...and, as
> per above, the worst case is that if someone has an old DTS and a new
> kernel then a panel that was already not working well will print a fat
> warning and startup a bit slower.
>
> If somehow I mess up and forget about this patch, feel free to send me
> a poke when the device tree patch is landed.

More than a month has passed now. One last warning before I apply this
revert in a few more days.

-Doug