Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1360028 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH 02/23] ARM: dts: n950: add display support

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH 02/23] ARM: dts: n950: add display support Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> - 2016-03-17 17:50 +0100
    Re: [PATCH 02/23] ARM: dts: n950: add display support Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org> - 2016-03-17 18:50 +0100
      Re: [PATCH 02/23] ARM: dts: n950: add display support Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com> - 2016-03-23 13:50 +0100
        Re: [PATCH 02/23] ARM: dts: n950: add display support Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org> - 2016-03-23 15:10 +0100
          Re: [PATCH 02/23] ARM: dts: n950: add display support Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com> - 2016-03-24 11:10 +0100
            Re: [PATCH 02/23] ARM: dts: n950: add display support Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org> - 2016-03-24 15:30 +0100
              Re: [PATCH 02/23] ARM: dts: n950: add display support Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com> - 2016-03-24 16:20 +0100
                Re: [PATCH 02/23] ARM: dts: n950: add display support Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org> - 2016-03-25 01:20 +0100

#1360028 — Re: [PATCH 02/23] ARM: dts: n950: add display support

Hi Sebastian,

Thank you for the patch.

On Tuesday 08 March 2016 17:39:34 Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> Signed-off-By: Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org>
> ---
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3-n950.dts | 71 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 71 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3-n950.dts
> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3-n950.dts index 0885b34d5d7d..41b8fb585272 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3-n950.dts
> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3-n950.dts
> @@ -17,6 +17,26 @@
>  	compatible = "nokia,omap3-n950", "ti,omap36xx", "ti,omap3";
>  };
> 
> +&omap3_pmx_core {
> +	dsi_pins: pinmux_dsi_pins {
> +		pinctrl-single,pins = <
> +			OMAP3_CORE1_IOPAD(0x20dc, PIN_OUTPUT | MUX_MODE1) /* dsi_dx0 -
> data0+ */
> +			OMAP3_CORE1_IOPAD(0x20de, PIN_OUTPUT | MUX_MODE1) /* dsi_dy0 -
> data0- */
> +			OMAP3_CORE1_IOPAD(0x20e0, PIN_OUTPUT | MUX_MODE1) /* dsi_dx1 -
> clk+   */
> +			OMAP3_CORE1_IOPAD(0x20e2, PIN_OUTPUT | MUX_MODE1) /* dsi_dy1 -
> clk-   */
> +			OMAP3_CORE1_IOPAD(0x20e4, PIN_OUTPUT | MUX_MODE1) /* dsi_dx2 -
> data1+ */
> +			OMAP3_CORE1_IOPAD(0x20e6, PIN_OUTPUT | MUX_MODE1) /* dsi_dy2 -
> data1- */
> +		>;
> +	};
> +
> +	display_pins: pinmux_display_pins {
> +		pinctrl-single,pins = <
> +			OMAP3_CORE1_IOPAD(0x20ca, PIN_INPUT | MUX_MODE4) /* gpio 62 -
> display te */
> +			OMAP3_CORE1_IOPAD(0x20fe, PIN_OUTPUT | MUX_MODE4) /* gpio 87 -
> display reset */
> +		>;
> +	};
> +};
> +
>  &i2c2 {
>  	smia_1: camera@10 {
>  		compatible = "nokia,smia";
> @@ -53,3 +73,54 @@
>  		};
>  	};
>  };
> +
> +&dss {
> +	status = "ok";
> +
> +	vdda_video-supply = <&vdac>;
> +};
> +
> +&dsi {
> +	status = "ok";
> +
> +	pinctrl-names = "default";
> +	pinctrl-0 = <&dsi_pins>;
> +
> +	vdd-supply = <&vpll2>;
> +
> +	port {
> +		dsi_out_ep: endpoint {
> +			remote-endpoint = <&lcd0_in>;
> +			lanes = <2 3 0 1 4 5>;
> +		};
> +	};
> +
> +	lcd0: display {
> +		compatible = "nokia,himalaya", "panel-dsi-cm";
> +		label = "lcd0";
> +
> +		pinctrl-names = "default";
> +		pinctrl-0 = <&display_pins>;
> +
> +		vpnl-supply = <&vmmc2>;
> +		vddi-supply = <&vio>;
> +
> +		reset-gpios = <&gpio3 23 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;	/* 87 */
> +		te-gpios = <&gpio2 30 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;	/* 62 */
> +
> +		has-dsi-backlight;
> +
> +		/* panel is 480x464 with top and bottom 5 lines not visible */

I assume you mean 480x864 ?

> +		/* physical dimensions: 48960µm x 88128µm */
> +		resolution-x = <480>;
> +		resolution-y = <854>;
> +		offset-x = <0>;
> +		offset-y = <5>;
> +
> +		port {
> +			lcd0_in: endpoint {
> +				remote-endpoint = <&dsi_out_ep>;
> +			};
> +		};
> +	};
> +};

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1360086

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi Laurent,

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 02:14:26PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> [...]
> > +
> > +		/* panel is 480x464 with top and bottom 5 lines not visible */
> 
> I assume you mean 480x864 ?

Yes, nice catch. Basically the screen is 480x864, but only
480x854 are visible.

> > +		/* physical dimensions: 48960µm x 88128µm */
> > +		resolution-x = <480>;
> > +		resolution-y = <854>;
> > +		offset-x = <0>;
> > +		offset-y = <5>;
> [...]

-- Sebastian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1363406

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 02:14:26PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>> [...]
>> > +
>> > +		/* panel is 480x464 with top and bottom 5 lines not visible */
>> 
>> I assume you mean 480x864 ?
>
> Yes, nice catch. Basically the screen is 480x864, but only
> 480x854 are visible.

It's been a while, but I thought the full 480x864 was actually usable
and visible.

BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1363444

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi,

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 02:40:53PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 02:14:26PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> > +
> >> > +		/* panel is 480x464 with top and bottom 5 lines not visible */
> >> 
> >> I assume you mean 480x864 ?
> >
> > Yes, nice catch. Basically the screen is 480x864, but only
> > 480x854 are visible.
> 
> It's been a while, but I thought the full 480x864 was actually usable
> and visible.

I tried that first and the first few lines were missing. The stock
kernel also uses only 854px:

https://github.com/nemomobile/kernel-adaptation-n950-n9/blob/mer-n9-2.6.32-20121301/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rm680-video.c

(search for partial_area)

-- Sebastian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1364040

On Wed, 23 Mar 2016, Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 02:40:53PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 02:14:26PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>> >> [...]
>> >> > +
>> >> > +		/* panel is 480x464 with top and bottom 5 lines not visible */
>> >> 
>> >> I assume you mean 480x864 ?
>> >
>> > Yes, nice catch. Basically the screen is 480x864, but only
>> > 480x854 are visible.
>> 
>> It's been a while, but I thought the full 480x864 was actually usable
>> and visible.
>
> I tried that first and the first few lines were missing. The stock
> kernel also uses only 854px:
>
> https://github.com/nemomobile/kernel-adaptation-n950-n9/blob/mer-n9-2.6.32-20121301/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rm680-video.c
>
> (search for partial_area)

Heh, I was reminded by old colleagues that it was actually my commit
back in the day that changed the resolution 864->854 in the stock
kernel. And that I did it reluctantly, because there really was no
technical reason to do the change.

I don't really care all that much either way anymore. I just thought
you'd like to get those 4800 pixels back that you've been missing all
these years. Plus 864 was nicer to deal with because it has 2^5 as a
prime factor while 854 only has 2.

BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1364193

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi,

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 12:03:01PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2016, Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 02:40:53PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >> On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 02:14:26PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >> >> [...]
> >> >> > +
> >> >> > +		/* panel is 480x464 with top and bottom 5 lines not visible */
> >> >> 
> >> >> I assume you mean 480x864 ?
> >> >
> >> > Yes, nice catch. Basically the screen is 480x864, but only
> >> > 480x854 are visible.
> >> 
> >> It's been a while, but I thought the full 480x864 was actually usable
> >> and visible.
> >
> > I tried that first and the first few lines were missing. The stock
> > kernel also uses only 854px:
> >
> > https://github.com/nemomobile/kernel-adaptation-n950-n9/blob/mer-n9-2.6.32-20121301/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rm680-video.c
> >
> > (search for partial_area)
> 
> Heh, I was reminded by old colleagues that it was actually my commit
> back in the day that changed the resolution 864->854 in the stock
> kernel. And that I did it reluctantly, because there really was no
> technical reason to do the change.
> 
> I don't really care all that much either way anymore. I just thought
> you'd like to get those 4800 pixels back that you've been missing all
> these years. Plus 864 was nicer to deal with because it has 2^5 as a
> prime factor while 854 only has 2.

As I said: I did use 864 initially. That results in missing pixels.
This is what I observed before switching to 854:

In fbcon the first line was rendered half (only the bottom part of
each character was visible). Then, when I rotated fbcon (fbcon has
native rotation support, which does not work with DRM, but just
renders the text differently), the left part of each character was
missing. In my case the "[" prefix of kernel messages was rendered
as two dots. At least the vertical line was not visible at all.

I _think_, that your HW team decided to cover the first and the
last few pixels of the 864 display with plastic. So technically
it's a 864 display, but effectively it's 854.

-- Sebastian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1364264

On Thu, 24 Mar 2016, Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org> wrote:
> As I said: I did use 864 initially. That results in missing pixels.

Sorry, I didn't mean to question this. Go with what works, not with some
old fart's ramblings!

> I _think_, that your HW team decided to cover the first and the
> last few pixels of the 864 display with plastic. So technically
> it's a 864 display, but effectively it's 854.

(*shudder* at "your HW team" ;)

It's plausible, the covers did change slightly for the developer
edition.

Good luck with the upstreaming efforts!


BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1364506

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi,

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 05:11:15PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2016, Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org> wrote:
> > As I said: I did use 864 initially. That results in missing pixels.
> 
> Sorry, I didn't mean to question this. Go with what works, not with some
> old fart's ramblings!

No problem. I also wondered why this has been done. If I understood
Tomi right, the userspace team feared, that their software would not
work with 864, since it was originally written for 854.

Anyways I'm pretty sure, that the first 5 pixels are unusable
from the users point of view.

> > I _think_, that your HW team decided to cover the first and the
> > last few pixels of the 864 display with plastic. So technically
> > it's a 864 display, but effectively it's 854.
> 
> (*shudder* at "your HW team" ;)

;)

> It's plausible, the covers did change slightly for the developer
> edition.

Assuming the non-developer edition can use the full display it
can be "unlocked" with my proposed DT bindings by slight
modifications. I guess there exist just a couple of those, so
maybe we just ignore it for the mainline kernel?

> Good luck with the upstreaming efforts!

Thanks.

-- Sebastian

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web