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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1687709 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH 6/8] drm: Allow DSI devices to be registered before the host registers.

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 6/8] drm: Allow DSI devices to be registered before the host registers. Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net> - 2017-07-15 01:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 6/8] drm: Allow DSI devices to be registered before the  host registers. Archit Taneja <architt@codeaurora.org> - 2017-07-17 06:30 +0200

#1687709 — Re: [PATCH 6/8] drm: Allow DSI devices to be registered before the host registers.

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

Archit Taneja <architt@codeaurora.org> writes:

> On 06/28/2017 01:28 AM, Eric Anholt wrote:
>> When a mipi_dsi_host is registered, the DT is walked to find any child
>> nodes with compatible strings.  Those get registered as DSI devices,
>> and most DSI panel drivers are mipi_dsi_drivers that attach to those nodes.
>> 
>> There is one special case currently, the adv7533 bridge, where the
>> bridge probes on I2C, and during the bridge attach step it looks up
>> the mipi_dsi_host and registers the mipi_dsi_device (for its own stub
>> mipi_dsi_driver).
>> 
>> For the Raspberry Pi panel, though, we also need to attach on I2C (our
>> control bus), but don't have a bridge driver.  The lack of a bridge's
>> attach() step like adv7533 uses means that we aren't able to delay the
>> mipi_dsi_device creation until the mipi_dsi_host is present.
>> 
>> To fix this, we extend mipi_dsi_device_register_full() to allow being
>> called with a NULL host, which puts the device on a queue waiting for
>> a host to appear.  When a new host is registered, we fill in the host
>> value and finish the device creation process.
>
> This is quite a nice idea. The only bothering thing is the info.of_node usage
> varies between child nodes (mipi_dsi_devs) and non-child nodes (i2c control
> bus).
>
> For DSI children expressed in DT, the of_node in info holds the DT node
> corresponding to the DSI child itself. For non-DT ones, this patch assumes
> that info.of_node stores the DSI host DT node. I think it should be okay as
> long as we mention the usage in a comment somewhere. The other option is to
> have a new info.host_node field to keep a track of the host DT node.

I think maybe you misread the patch?  We're using
of_get_parent(dsi->dev.node), which came from info->node, to compare to
host->dev->of_node().

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1688642 — Re: [PATCH 6/8] drm: Allow DSI devices to be registered before the host registers.

On 07/15/2017 04:28 AM, Eric Anholt wrote:
> Archit Taneja <architt@codeaurora.org> writes:
> 
>> On 06/28/2017 01:28 AM, Eric Anholt wrote:
>>> When a mipi_dsi_host is registered, the DT is walked to find any child
>>> nodes with compatible strings.  Those get registered as DSI devices,
>>> and most DSI panel drivers are mipi_dsi_drivers that attach to those nodes.
>>>
>>> There is one special case currently, the adv7533 bridge, where the
>>> bridge probes on I2C, and during the bridge attach step it looks up
>>> the mipi_dsi_host and registers the mipi_dsi_device (for its own stub
>>> mipi_dsi_driver).
>>>
>>> For the Raspberry Pi panel, though, we also need to attach on I2C (our
>>> control bus), but don't have a bridge driver.  The lack of a bridge's
>>> attach() step like adv7533 uses means that we aren't able to delay the
>>> mipi_dsi_device creation until the mipi_dsi_host is present.
>>>
>>> To fix this, we extend mipi_dsi_device_register_full() to allow being
>>> called with a NULL host, which puts the device on a queue waiting for
>>> a host to appear.  When a new host is registered, we fill in the host
>>> value and finish the device creation process.
>>
>> This is quite a nice idea. The only bothering thing is the info.of_node usage
>> varies between child nodes (mipi_dsi_devs) and non-child nodes (i2c control
>> bus).
>>
>> For DSI children expressed in DT, the of_node in info holds the DT node
>> corresponding to the DSI child itself. For non-DT ones, this patch assumes
>> that info.of_node stores the DSI host DT node. I think it should be okay as
>> long as we mention the usage in a comment somewhere. The other option is to
>> have a new info.host_node field to keep a track of the host DT node.
> 
> I think maybe you misread the patch?  We're using
> of_get_parent(dsi->dev.node), which came from info->node, to compare to
> host->dev->of_node().

I think I did misread it.

Although, I'm not entirely clear what we should be setting info.node to.
In patch #8, info.node is set by:

	endpoint = of_graph_get_next_endpoint(dev->of_node, NULL);
	info.node = of_graph_get_remote_port(endpoint);

Looking at the dt bindings in patch #7, it looks like info.node is set
to the 'port' device node in dsi@7e700000, is that right?

I suppose 'port' here seems like a reasonable representation of
dsi->dev.node, I wonder how it would work if the dsi host had multiple
ports underneath it. I.e:

dsi@7e700000 {
	...
	...
	ports {
		port@0 {
			...
			dsi_out_port: endpoint {
				remote-endpoint = <&panel_dsi_port>;
			};
		};
		port@1 {
			...
			...
		};
	};
};

Here, we would need to set info.node to the 'ports' node, so that
of_get_parent(dsi->dev.of_node) equals host->dev->of_node. That doesn't
seem correct.

Ideally, a dev's 'of_node' should be left to NULL if we don't have a
corresponding OF node. We're sort of overriding it here since we don't
have any other place to store this information in the mipi_dsi_device
struct.

Maybe we could add a 'host_node' entry in mipi_dsi_device itself, which
is exclusively used cases where the DSI device doesn't have a DT node.
Our check in mipi_dsi_host_register() could then be something like:

	if (dsi->host_node) == host->dev->of_node) {
		...
		...
	}

Since Thierry also reviews drm_mipi_dsi.c changes, it would nice to
get some comments from him too.

Thanks,
Archit

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web