[PATCH] OMAPDSS: Do not require a VDDS_DSI regulator on am35xx

[PATCH] OMAPDSS: Do not require a VDDS_DSI regulator on am35xx

[Raphael Assenat]

On our AM3505 based board, dpi.c complains that there is no VDSS_DSI regulator
and the framebuffer cannot be enabled. However, this check does not seem to
apply to AM3505/17 chips.

I am not the first facing this issue, see this thread from Nov. 2011:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m\x132147745930213&w=2

The string 'vdds_dsi' does appear once in the technical reference manual[1]
but there is no corresponding power pin on the package[2]. I failed to 
locate any signal that could be an equivalent. I am trying to obtain some
clarifications on TI's forum[3]...

In any case, I am currently running with the patch below. In order to keep
cpu_is_xx uses to a minimum, I check for am35xx once at init time and allow
dpi.vdds_dsi_reg to be NULL from then on, getting rid of all the other
cpu_is_omap34xx uses in the process.

Your comments would be appreciated. Please also consider for merging.

[1] http://www.ti.com/litv/pdf/sprugr0b
[2] http://www.ti.com/lit/gpn/am3505
[3] http://e2e.ti.com/support/dsp/sitara_arm174_microprocessors/f/416/t/202586.aspx

Signed-off-by: Raphael Assenat <raph@8d.com>

diff --git a/drivers/video/omap2/dss/dpi.c b/drivers/video/omap2/dss/dpi.c
index 8c2056c..d3b428d 100644
--- a/drivers/video/omap2/dss/dpi.c
+++ b/drivers/video/omap2/dss/dpi.c
@@ -180,11 +180,6 @@ int omapdss_dpi_display_enable(struct omap_dss_device *dssdev)
 {
 	int r;
 
-	if (cpu_is_omap34xx() && !dpi.vdds_dsi_reg) {
-		DSSERR("no VDSS_DSI regulator\n");
-		return -ENODEV;
-	}
-
 	if (dssdev->manager = NULL) {
 		DSSERR("failed to enable display: no manager\n");
 		return -ENODEV;
@@ -196,7 +191,7 @@ int omapdss_dpi_display_enable(struct omap_dss_device *dssdev)
 		goto err_start_dev;
 	}
 
-	if (cpu_is_omap34xx()) {
+	if (dpi.vdds_dsi_reg) {
 		r = regulator_enable(dpi.vdds_dsi_reg);
 		if (r)
 			goto err_reg_enable;
@@ -240,7 +235,7 @@ err_dsi_pll_init:
 err_get_dsi:
 	dispc_runtime_put();
 err_get_dispc:
-	if (cpu_is_omap34xx())
+	if (dpi.vdds_dsi_reg)
 		regulator_disable(dpi.vdds_dsi_reg);
 err_reg_enable:
 	omap_dss_stop_device(dssdev);
@@ -261,7 +256,7 @@ void omapdss_dpi_display_disable(struct omap_dss_device *dssdev)
 
 	dispc_runtime_put();
 
-	if (cpu_is_omap34xx())
+	if (dpi.vdds_dsi_reg)
 		regulator_disable(dpi.vdds_dsi_reg);
 
 	omap_dss_stop_device(dssdev);
@@ -343,7 +338,7 @@ static int __init dpi_init_display(struct omap_dss_device *dssdev)
 {
 	DSSDBG("init_display\n");
 
-	if (cpu_is_omap34xx() && dpi.vdds_dsi_reg = NULL) {
+	if (cpu_is_omap34xx() && dpi.vdds_dsi_reg = NULL && !soc_is_am35xx()) {
 		struct regulator *vdds_dsi;
 
 		vdds_dsi = dss_get_vdds_dsi();

Re: [PATCH] OMAPDSS: Do not require a VDDS_DSI regulator on am35xx

[Tomi Valkeinen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1668 bytes --]

On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 16:04 -0400, Raphael Assenat wrote:
> On our AM3505 based board, dpi.c complains that there is no VDSS_DSI regulator
> and the framebuffer cannot be enabled. However, this check does not seem to
> apply to AM3505/17 chips.
> 
> I am not the first facing this issue, see this thread from Nov. 2011:
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=132147745930213&w=2
> 
> The string 'vdds_dsi' does appear once in the technical reference manual[1]
> but there is no corresponding power pin on the package[2]. I failed to 
> locate any signal that could be an equivalent. I am trying to obtain some
> clarifications on TI's forum[3]...
> 
> In any case, I am currently running with the patch below. In order to keep
> cpu_is_xx uses to a minimum, I check for am35xx once at init time and allow
> dpi.vdds_dsi_reg to be NULL from then on, getting rid of all the other
> cpu_is_omap34xx uses in the process.
> 
> Your comments would be appreciated. Please also consider for merging.

VDDS_DSI is used to power up some of the DSS pins on OMAP3. I don't know
why the HW was designed like that... If you have a correct image without
the power, then obviously it's not needed.

We don't currently deal with AM3xxx SoCs in any way in the driver. It's
difficult enough trying to handle just OMAP DSS versions, and now we
need to add AM3xxx to the mix. Sigh =).

However, I don't want to apply this patch, as we're trying to remove the
cpu_is checks (soc_is goes in the same category).

I guess we need to add entries for the AM3xxx SoCs in the
dss_features.c.

Any idea what other differences AM3xxx has compared to OMAP3?

 Tomi


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] OMAPDSS: Do not require a VDDS_DSI regulator on am35xx

[Raphaël Assénat]

On 31/07/12 04:45 AM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 16:04 -0400, Raphael Assenat wrote:
>> On our AM3505 based board, dpi.c complains that there is no VDSS_DSI regulator
>> and the framebuffer cannot be enabled. However, this check does not seem to
>> apply to AM3505/17 chips.
>>
>> I am not the first facing this issue, see this thread from Nov. 2011:
>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m\x132147745930213&w=2
>>
>> The string 'vdds_dsi' does appear once in the technical reference manual[1]
>> but there is no corresponding power pin on the package[2]. I failed to 
>> locate any signal that could be an equivalent. I am trying to obtain some
>> clarifications on TI's forum[3]...
>>
>> In any case, I am currently running with the patch below. In order to keep
>> cpu_is_xx uses to a minimum, I check for am35xx once at init time and allow
>> dpi.vdds_dsi_reg to be NULL from then on, getting rid of all the other
>> cpu_is_omap34xx uses in the process.
>>
>> Your comments would be appreciated. Please also consider for merging.
> 
> VDDS_DSI is used to power up some of the DSS pins on OMAP3. I don't know
> why the HW was designed like that... If you have a correct image without
> the power, then obviously it's not needed.

Yes, I confirm the image is displayed properly.

> We don't currently deal with AM3xxx SoCs in any way in the driver. It's
> difficult enough trying to handle just OMAP DSS versions, and now we
> need to add AM3xxx to the mix. Sigh =).
> 
> However, I don't want to apply this patch, as we're trying to remove the
> cpu_is checks (soc_is goes in the same category).
> 
> I guess we need to add entries for the AM3xxx SoCs in the
> dss_features.c.
> 
> Any idea what other differences AM3xxx has compared to OMAP3?

This is the only one I am aware of.


Best regards,
Raphaël Assénat