Re: [PATCH RESEND v2 08/12] dt-bindings: add binding for generic eDP panel

Daniel Vetter
2019-02-04T09:40:12Z

On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 09:23:59AM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 12:13:55AM -0800, Vasily Khoruzhick wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 11:43 PM Thierry Reding <thierry.reding-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Feb 03, 2019 at 10:54:57AM -0800, Vasily Khoruzhick wrote:
> > > > eDP panels usually have EDID EEPROM, so there's no need to define panel
> > > > width/height or any modes/timings in dts. But this panel still may have
> > > > regulator and/or backlight.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Vasily Khoruzhick <anarsoul-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> > > > ---
> > > > .../devicetree/bindings/display/panel/panel-edp.txt | 7 +++++++
> > > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/panel-edp.txt
> > >
> > > Please don't try to make panels look more generic than they really are.
> > > You're going to have to provide a compatible string for your device that
> > > is more specific than "panel-edp". You claim that you don't need any
> > > extra information that is panel specific, but you don't know that now.
> > > We have in the past thought that we didn't need things like prepare
> > > delay, but then we ran into situations where we did need them.
> > >
> > > Just do what everybody else does. Provide a specific compatible string
> > > and match on that in the panel-simple driver. Even if you can read all
> > > the video timings from an EDID EEPROM, you can still provide a mode in
> > > the panel descriptor to serve as a fallback if for example the EEPROM
> > > is faulty on some device.
> >
> > Pinebook used several 768p panels that have slightly different timings
> > and recent batch uses 1080p panel.
> >
> > What panel descriptor should I use as fallback?
>
> You don't use panel descriptors as fallback. The simple-panel driver
> will bind to a panel device and use the corresponding descriptor. If
> your device tree contains the correct information, the descriptor is
> correct for the panel you have.
>
> In other words you need to ensure that you have the correct panel in
> device tree for the board that you're using. This is exactly the same
> thing as for other devices.
>
> One way to to this is to have separate device trees for each variant
> of the board that you want to support. Another variant may be to have
> a common device tree and then have some early firmware update the DTB
> with the correct panel information.

This would defeat the point of edp, which is to standardize the mess of
panels (at least somewhat) and avoid having to change the DT/ACPI
tables/firmware for every board you ship. Also, we do have DP quirking
infrastructure already (using the OUI), I think if there's something that
doesn't work then we should quirk it there.

What does make sense though imo is if we try not to stuff the edp panel
into panel-simple, because it's anything like a simple dumb panel. There's
also some integration awkwardness since with this panel you need to do dp
aux/i2c transactions to get at the information (edid alone isn't good
enough for edp), and I'm not sure how exactly that's supposed to be
instantiated. Maybe a special function to instantiate an edp panel, which
takes both a DT node and the dp_aux controller would be much better,
instead of trying to auto-match against a DT compatible string and load a
panel driver which is almost all fake.

Or we teach dp_aux to register itself and somehow teach panel-edp how it
can get hold of the dp_aux channel it needs.

But fake mode in panel-simple sounds like the wrong approach. At least
from our experience with i915 (and I think other drivers supporting edp),
the standardization of panels for basic stuff at least worked.
Self-refresh seems an entirely different story unfortunately ... but again
quirking that for DP stuff should be done using the OUI I think.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation