| Message ID | 20210115224420.1635017-1-dianders@chromium.org |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | drm/panel-simple: Patches for N116BCA-EA1 | expand |
Hi folks, On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 2:44 PM Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote: > > This series is to get the N116BCA-EA1 panel working. Most of the > patches are simple, but on hardware I have in front of me the panel > sometimes doesn't come up. I'm still working with the hardware > manufacturer to get to the bottom of it, but I've got it working with > retries. Adding the retries doesn't seem like an insane thing to do > and makes some of the error handling more robust, so I've gone ahead > and included those patches here. Hopefully they look OK. > > Changes in v2: > - Set the "unprepared_time" so if we retry we give the proper delay. > - ("drm/panel-simple: Don't wait longer for HPD...") new for v2. > - ("drm/panel-simple: Retry if we timeout waiting for HPD") new for v2. > - ("dt-bindings: dt-bindings: display: simple: Add N116BCA-EA1") new for v2. > - ("drm/panel-simple: Add N116BCA-EA1") new for v2. > > Douglas Anderson (5): > drm/panel-simple: Undo enable if HPD never asserts > drm/panel-simple: Don't wait longer for HPD than hpd_absent_delay > drm/panel-simple: Retry if we timeout waiting for HPD > dt-bindings: dt-bindings: display: simple: Add N116BCA-EA1 > drm/panel-simple: Add N116BCA-EA1 > > .../bindings/display/panel/panel-simple.yaml | 2 + > drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-simple.c | 84 +++++++++++++++++-- > 2 files changed, 80 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) While this isn't massively urgent, I'm hoping to get some confirmation that it's still in someone's queue to look at. A quick "it's still in my queue" would be much appreciated! :-) If I don't hear anything then I guess next week I'll see if I can find other ways to poke folks or find a different route to land this series. Thanks! -Doug
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 11:44 PM Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote: > - ("drm/panel-simple: Don't wait longer for HPD...") new for v2. > - ("drm/panel-simple: Retry if we timeout waiting for HPD") new for v2. I couldn't find these patches in my inbox but my concern would be that at some point panel-simple will turn from simple into panel-rube-goldberg-machine. Given that the talk with the manufacturer may result in even more quirks... maybe this should just be a separate panel driver? (I expect pushback because I see how handy it is, but I am the guy writing new panel drivers all the time rather than using simple.) Yours, Linus Walleij
Hi, On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 3:25 PM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 11:44 PM Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote: > > > - ("drm/panel-simple: Don't wait longer for HPD...") new for v2. > > - ("drm/panel-simple: Retry if we timeout waiting for HPD") new for v2. > > I couldn't find these patches in my inbox Doh! Sorry about that. I think get_maintainer tagged you only on the patches that had the explicit "fixes" in them on something you were involved in. I tend to rely on get_maintainer heavily unless I think someone is particularly interested in the whole series. I will make sure to CC you on the whole series if I post it again. In the meantime the whole series is on lore: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210115224420.1635017-1-dianders@chromium.org/ > but my concern would > be that at some point panel-simple will turn from simple into > panel-rube-goldberg-machine. Yes, it's definitely something to watch out for. I guess you're commenting on the general number of changes I've made to simple-panel in the last year or two? I guess my comment on those: * Many of the changes I made were around HPD handling and supporting a GPIO (and also supporting the "hpd absent delay"). The fact that we use a GPIO for HPD is actually an attribute of our board design, though, so if I had forked panel drivers for each of the panels that needed it then it would have required copying the code lots of places (or implementing some code sharing). I was specifically asked to do the HPD handling code at the panel layer. * The other big change I made recently was around allowing for relative rather than absolute timings (instead of a fixed delay at a given stage adding a constraint that enough time had passed since a previous event). When I proposed that the feedback I got back was that it was a good improvement for all panels and something that had been on a TODO list for a while. ...so while it feels like I keep piling crap onto simple-panel, I _think_ they've been good general improvements that many people will be able to benefit from and I don't think they've uglified things lots. > Given that the talk with the manufacturer may result > in even more quirks... maybe this should just be a separate > panel driver? I don't _think_ this will end up with more quirks. At least I sure hope not. So far it seems like pure luck that I even noticed it because only one other device in the whole batch produced had similar problems. That leads me to believe that there could be other panels with a similar need. > (I expect pushback because I see how handy it is, but > I am the guy writing new panel drivers all the time rather than > using simple.) I guess what I'd say in summary is: * If you object to the retries in simple panel, I still hope the rest of the series can land. * If somehow this panel gets out into real users hands and we find that the retries are necessary and people still don't want the retries in simple panel, I can fork a special panel driver just for it then. -Doug
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 12:47 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote: > I guess what I'd say in summary is: > > * If you object to the retries in simple panel, I still hope the rest > of the series can land. > > * If somehow this panel gets out into real users hands and we find > that the retries are necessary and people still don't want the retries > in simple panel, I can fork a special panel driver just for it then. I'm fine with the retries, if it is needed outside of the "simple" (hm) panel driver then we can certainly factor it out as a helper or library. I looked at the patches at lore. Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> I see also Stephen has reviewed some patches. Tell me if you need me to also apply them to drm-misc. (I guess yes?) Yours, Linus Walleij
Hi, On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 4:57 PM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 12:47 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote: > > > I guess what I'd say in summary is: > > > > * If you object to the retries in simple panel, I still hope the rest > > of the series can land. > > > > * If somehow this panel gets out into real users hands and we find > > that the retries are necessary and people still don't want the retries > > in simple panel, I can fork a special panel driver just for it then. > > I'm fine with the retries, if it is needed outside of the "simple" (hm) > panel driver then we can certainly factor it out as a helper or > library. > > I looked at the patches at lore. > Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> > I see also Stephen has reviewed some patches. > > Tell me if you need me to also apply them to drm-misc. > (I guess yes?) Yes please. I was giving Sam time to do it but I haven't heard from him for a while. Right before you responded I poked Thierry to see if he was available but if you're willing/able to do it then I'm sure it would save him the trouble. If you'd like me to re-post the patches (CCing you) I can. Please let me know. If you happen to feel in an applying mood one other patch to simple-panel I think is OK to land is at: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210222081716.1.I1a45aece5d2ac6a2e73bbec50da2086e43e0862b@changeid -Doug
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 11:44 PM Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote: > This series is to get the N116BCA-EA1 panel working. Most of the > patches are simple, but on hardware I have in front of me the panel > sometimes doesn't come up. I'm still working with the hardware > manufacturer to get to the bottom of it, but I've got it working with > retries. Adding the retries doesn't seem like an insane thing to do > and makes some of the error handling more robust, so I've gone ahead > and included those patches here. Hopefully they look OK. > > Changes in v2: This v2 version applied to drm-misc-next. Yours, Linus Walleij
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 2:01 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote: > If you happen to feel in an applying mood one other patch to > simple-panel I think is OK to land is at: > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210222081716.1.I1a45aece5d2ac6a2e73bbec50da2086e43e0862b@changeid I applied and pushed this as well. Yours, Linus Walleij
This series is to get the N116BCA-EA1 panel working. Most of the patches are simple, but on hardware I have in front of me the panel sometimes doesn't come up. I'm still working with the hardware manufacturer to get to the bottom of it, but I've got it working with retries. Adding the retries doesn't seem like an insane thing to do and makes some of the error handling more robust, so I've gone ahead and included those patches here. Hopefully they look OK. Changes in v2: - Set the "unprepared_time" so if we retry we give the proper delay. - ("drm/panel-simple: Don't wait longer for HPD...") new for v2. - ("drm/panel-simple: Retry if we timeout waiting for HPD") new for v2. - ("dt-bindings: dt-bindings: display: simple: Add N116BCA-EA1") new for v2. - ("drm/panel-simple: Add N116BCA-EA1") new for v2. Douglas Anderson (5): drm/panel-simple: Undo enable if HPD never asserts drm/panel-simple: Don't wait longer for HPD than hpd_absent_delay drm/panel-simple: Retry if we timeout waiting for HPD dt-bindings: dt-bindings: display: simple: Add N116BCA-EA1 drm/panel-simple: Add N116BCA-EA1 .../bindings/display/panel/panel-simple.yaml | 2 + drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-simple.c | 84 +++++++++++++++++-- 2 files changed, 80 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)