Re: [PATCH 1/6] drm/bridge: use bus flags in bridge timings

Laurent Pinchart
2018-09-14T09:57:33Z

On Friday, 14 September 2018 12:49:40 EEST Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Stefan,
>
> On Thursday, 6 September 2018 23:25:56 EEST Stefan Agner wrote:
> > On 06.09.2018 04:07, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 8:32 PM Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch> wrote:
> > >> On 05.09.2018 00:44, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Good point! I actually really don't like that we use the same flags
> > >> here
> > >> but from a different perspective. Especially since the flags defines
> > >> document things differently:
> > >>
> > >> /* drive data on pos. edge */
> > >> #define DRM_BUS_FLAG_PIXDATA_POSEDGE (1<<2)
> > >> /* drive data on neg. edge */
> > >> #define DRM_BUS_FLAG_PIXDATA_NEGEDGE (1<<3)
> > >
> > > Maybe a stupid comment from my side, but can't we just change the
> > > documentation to match the usecases?
> > >
> > > /* Trigger pixel data latch on positive edge */
> > > #define DRM_BUS_FLAG_PIXDATA_POSEDGE (1<<2)
> > >
> > >> Using the opposite perspective would also need translation in crtc
> > >> drivers... So far no driver uses sampling_edge.
> > >>
> > >> I would prefer if we always use the meaning as documented by the flags.
> > >>
> > >> I guess we would need to convert DRM_BUS_FLAG_PIXDATA_POSEDGE ->
> > >> DRM_BUS_FLAG_PIXDATA_NEGEDGE.
> > >>
> > >> Linus Walleij, you added sampling edge, any thoughts?
> > >
> > > I just thought it was generally useful to have triggering edge encoded
> > > into the bridge as it makes it clear that this edge is something
> > > that is a delayed version of the driving edge which is subject to
> > > clock skew caused by the speed of electrons in silicon and
> > > copper and slew rate caused by parasitic capacitance.
> >
> > Ok, I read a bit up on the history of bridge timing, especially:
> > https://www.spinics.net/lists/dri-devel/msg155618.html
> >
> > IMHO, this got overengineered. For displays we do not need all that
> > setup/sample delay timing information, and much longer cables are in
> > use. So why is all that needed for bridges?
> >
> > For Linus case, the THS8134(A/B) data sheet I found (revised March 2010)
> > clearly states:
> > Clock input. A rising edge on CLK latches RPr0-7, GY0-7, BPb0-7.
> >
> > So we need to drive on negative edge, hence DRM_BUS_FLAG_PIXDATA_NEGEDGE
> > should be used, which makes the pl111 driver setting TIM2_IPC:
> > http://infocenter.arm.com/help/index.jsp?topic=/com.arm.doc.ddi0121d/index
> > .h tml
> >
> > > DRM_BUS_FLAG_PIXDATA_POSEDGE is the right value for my use cases, but it
> > > doesn't match how the ADV7123 operates. Using
> > > DRM_BUS_FLAG_PIXDATA_NEGEDGE
> > > would match the hardware, but would break display for some modes,
> > > depending on the display clock frequency as the internal 8.5ns output
> > > delay applied to a falling clock edge would fall right into the 1.7ns
> > > setup + hold time window of the ADV7123 around the rising edge. I can't
> > > test this right now as I don't have local access to boards using the
> > > ADV7123, but from a quick calculation that ignores the PCB transmission
> > > delay modes with frequencies between 57MHz and 71MHz could break if the
> > > data was output on the falling edge of the clock.
> >
> > If clocks vs. data signal are really that much off on R-Car DU, then
> > parallel displays must have the very same issue...
> >
> > Are you sure that only the clock signal has an output delay? And that
> > this output delay is a fixed value, clock independent?
> >
> > Typically, delays apply to all signals equally, and often are clock
> > frequency dependent...
> >
> > Without really looking at the signals, I would not jump to conclusions
> > here! I am pretty sure that driving on negative edge works just as well.
>
> I've tested Linus' original patch and it broke display on R-Car, so, no, it
> doesn't work :-)
>
> The R-Car display engine delays the clock internally (in some cases that
> delay is even configurable, and that's not uncommon in display
> controllers). We really need all this information, and I believe we need it
> for panels too, not just for bridges. The fact that we managed to get away
> without adding it to panels is likely due to the large number of panels out
> there, which makes it less likely that the same panel gets used by
> different systems in mainline with different clock delays. I expect that
> some panel drivers report the wrong clock edge to make things work on the
> board they were tested with, and I expect we'll eventually need to add the
> same information for panels too.
>
> So please don't remove this useful API, otherwise you'll break my board, and
> I won't be happy.

Or, to be precise, the board won't break now, but as soon as I need to
implement support for configuring the output clock edge, it will break as the
ADV7123 driver won't give me the right information to make the right choice.

--
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart