* [PATCHv7][ 2/6] video: imxfb: Also add pwmr for the device tree.
From: Denis Carikli @ 2013-10-24 8:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
In-Reply-To: <1382605103-9595-1-git-send-email-denis@eukrea.com>
pwmr has to be set to get the imxfb backlight work,
though pwmr was only configurable trough the platform data.
Cc: Rob Herring <rob.herring@calxeda.com>
Cc: Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>
Cc: Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk>
Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>
Cc: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com>
Cc: linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Sascha Hauer <kernel@pengutronix.de>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Cc: Eric Bénard <eric@eukrea.com>
Signed-off-by: Denis Carikli <denis@eukrea.com>
Acked-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>
---
.../devicetree/bindings/video/fsl,imx-fb.txt | 3 +++
drivers/video/imxfb.c | 2 ++
2 files changed, 5 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/video/fsl,imx-fb.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/video/fsl,imx-fb.txt
index 46da08d..ac457ae 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/video/fsl,imx-fb.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/video/fsl,imx-fb.txt
@@ -17,6 +17,9 @@ Required nodes:
Optional properties:
- fsl,dmacr: DMA Control Register value. This is optional. By default, the
register is not modified as recommended by the datasheet.
+- fsl,pwmr: LCDC PWM Contrast Control Register value. That property is
+ optional, but defining it is necessary to get the backlight working. If that
+ property is ommited, the register is zeroed.
- fsl,lscr1: LCDC Sharp Configuration Register value.
Example:
diff --git a/drivers/video/imxfb.c b/drivers/video/imxfb.c
index 4bf3837..f09372d 100644
--- a/drivers/video/imxfb.c
+++ b/drivers/video/imxfb.c
@@ -833,6 +833,8 @@ static int imxfb_init_fbinfo(struct platform_device *pdev)
of_property_read_u32(np, "fsl,dmacr", &fbi->dmacr);
+ of_property_read_u32(np, "fsl,pwmr", &fbi->pwmr);
+
/* These two function pointers could be used by some specific
* platforms. */
fbi->lcd_power = NULL;
--
1.7.9.5
^ permalink raw reply related
* Re: [RFR 2/2] drm/panel: Add simple panel support
From: Laurent Pinchart @ 2013-10-24 10:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tomi Valkeinen
Cc: Thierry Reding, Laurent Pinchart, Rob Herring, Pawel Moll,
Mark Rutland, Stephen Warren, Ian Campbell, devicetree,
linux-fbdev, dri-devel, Dave Airlie, linux-media,
sylvester.nawrocki, Guennadi Liakhovetski
In-Reply-To: <525FD8DD.3090509@ti.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3419 bytes --]
Hi Tomi,
On Thursday 17 October 2013 15:32:29 Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 17/10/13 15:17, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Thursday 17 October 2013 14:59:41 Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> >> On 17/10/13 14:51, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>>> I'm not sure if there's a specific need for the port or endpoint nodes
> >>>> in cases like the above. Even if we have common properties describing
> >>>> the endpoint, I guess they could just be in the parent node.
> >>>>
> >>>> panel {
> >>>> remote = <&dc>;
> >>>> common-video-property = <asd>;
> >>>> };
> >>>>
> >>>> The above would imply one port and one endpoint. Would that work? If we
> >>>> had a function like parse_endpoint(node), we could just point it to
> >>>> either a real endpoint node, or to the device's node.
> >>>
> >>> You reference the display controller here, not a specific display
> >>> controller output. Don't most display controllers have several outputs ?
> >>
> >> Sure. Then the display controller could have more verbose description.
> >> But the panel could still have what I wrote above, except the 'remote'
> >> property would point to a real endpoint node inside the dispc node, not
> >> to the dispc node.
> >>
> >> This would, of course, need some extra code to handle the different
> >> cases, but just from DT point of view, I think all the relevant
> >> information is there.
> >
> > There's many ways to describe the same information in DT. While we could
> > have DT bindings that use different descriptions for different devices
> > and still support all of them in our code, why should we opt for that
> > option that will make the implementation much more complex when we can
> > describe connections in a simple and generic way ?
>
> My suggestion was simple and generic. I'm not proposing per-device
> custom bindings.
>
> My point was, if we can describe the connections as I described above,
> which to me sounds possible, we can simplify the panel DT data for 99.9%
> of the cases.
>
> To me, the first of these looks much nicer:
>
> panel {
> remote = <&remote-endpoint>;
> common-video-property = <asd>;
> };
>
> panel {
> port {
> endpoint {
> remote = <&remote-endpoint>;
> common-video-property = <asd>;
> };
> };
> };
Please note that the common video properties would be in the panel node, not
in the endpoint node (unless you have specific requirements to do so, which
isn't the common case).
> If that can be supported in the SW by adding complexity to a few functions,
> and it covers practically all the panels, isn't it worth it?
>
> Note that I have not tried this, so I don't know if there are issues.
> It's just a thought. Even if there's need for a endpoint node, perhaps
> the port node can be made optional.
It can be worth it, as long as we make sure that simplified bindings cover the
needs of the generic code.
We could assume that, if the port subnode isn't present, the device will have
a single port, with a single endpoint. However, isn't the number of endpoints
a system property rather than a device property ? If a port of a device is
connected to two remote ports it will require two endpoints. We could select
the simplified or full bindings based on the system topology though.
I've CC'ed Sylwester Nawrocki and Guennadi Liakhovetski, the V4L2 DT bindings
authors, as well as the linux-media list, to get their opinion on this.
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [RFR 2/2] drm/panel: Add simple panel support
From: Tomi Valkeinen @ 2013-10-24 10:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Laurent Pinchart
Cc: Thierry Reding, Laurent Pinchart, Rob Herring, Pawel Moll,
Mark Rutland, Stephen Warren, Ian Campbell, devicetree,
linux-fbdev, dri-devel, Dave Airlie, linux-media,
sylvester.nawrocki, Guennadi Liakhovetski
In-Reply-To: <1853455.BSevh91aGB@avalon>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2297 bytes --]
On 24/10/13 13:40, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>> panel {
>> remote = <&remote-endpoint>;
>> common-video-property = <asd>;
>> };
>>
>> panel {
>> port {
>> endpoint {
>> remote = <&remote-endpoint>;
>> common-video-property = <asd>;
>> };
>> };
>> };
>
> Please note that the common video properties would be in the panel node, not
> in the endpoint node (unless you have specific requirements to do so, which
> isn't the common case).
Hmm, well, the panel driver must look for its properties either in the
panel node, or in the endpoint node (I guess it could look them from
both, but that doesn't sound good).
If you write the panel driver, and in all your cases the properties work
fine in the panel node, does that mean they'll work fine with everybody?
I guess there are different kinds of properties. Something like a
regulator is obviously property of the panel. But anything related to
the video itself, like DPI's bus width, or perhaps even something like
"orientation" if the panel supports such, could need to be in the
endpoint node.
But yes, I understand what you mean. With "common-video-property" I
meant common properties like DPI bus width.
>> If that can be supported in the SW by adding complexity to a few functions,
>> and it covers practically all the panels, isn't it worth it?
>>
>> Note that I have not tried this, so I don't know if there are issues.
>> It's just a thought. Even if there's need for a endpoint node, perhaps
>> the port node can be made optional.
>
> It can be worth it, as long as we make sure that simplified bindings cover the
> needs of the generic code.
>
> We could assume that, if the port subnode isn't present, the device will have
> a single port, with a single endpoint. However, isn't the number of endpoints
Right.
> a system property rather than a device property ? If a port of a device is
Yes.
> connected to two remote ports it will require two endpoints. We could select
> the simplified or full bindings based on the system topology though.
The drivers should not know about simplified/normal bindings. They
should use CDF DT helper functions to get the port and endpoint
information. The helper functions would do the assuming.
Tomi
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 901 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [RFR 2/2] drm/panel: Add simple panel support
From: Laurent Pinchart @ 2013-10-24 11:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thierry Reding
Cc: Laurent Pinchart, Tomi Valkeinen, Rob Herring, Pawel Moll,
Mark Rutland, Stephen Warren, Ian Campbell,
devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
linux-fbdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
dri-devel-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW, Dave Airlie
In-Reply-To: <20131017124619.GG10993-AwZRO8vwLAwmlAP/+Wk3EA@public.gmane.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 14225 bytes --]
Hi Thierry,
On Thursday 17 October 2013 14:46:20 Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 02:14:45PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Thursday 17 October 2013 13:41:40 Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 01:02:38PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > > On Thursday 17 October 2013 10:53:43 Thierry Reding wrote:
[snip]
> > The point is that the video pipeline must be described in DT. Having a
> > per-device way to represent connections would be a nightmare to support
> > from an implementation point of view, hence the need for a generic way to
> > describe them.
>
> Okay, so we're back to the need to describe pipelines in DT. At the risk
> of sounding selfish: I don't care about pipelines. I just want us to
> settle on a way to represent a dumb panel in DT so that it can be
> enabled when it needs to. Furthermore I don't have any hardware that
> exhibits any of these "advanced" features, so I'm totally unqualified to
> work on any of this.
>
> Can we please try to be a little pragmatic here and solve one problem at
> a time? I am aware that solving this for panels may require some amount
> of foresight, but let's not try to solve everything at once at the risk
> of not getting anything done at all.
I won't force you to care about pipelines, and I don't think this is selfish
at all :-)
What I would like to ensure is that whatever bindings we come up with, they
will not preclude us from adding pipeline support when needed (as I'm pretty
sure it will be needed at some point).
> > > > I'll still keep trying of course, but not for years.I have yet to
> > > > see someone proposing a viable solution to share drivers between DRM
> > > > and V4L2, which is a real pressing requirement, partly due to DT.
> > >
> > > Yeah... I still don't get that side of the argument. Why exactly do we
> > > need to share the drivers again?
> >
> > Think about a scaler IP in a SoC or FPGA, with one instance used in a
> > camera capture pipeline, supported by a V4L2 driver, and one instance
> > used in a video output pipeline, supported by a DRM driver. We want a
> > single driver for that IP core. Same story for video encoders.
>
> Yes, I see. This doesn't immediately concern the simple panel problem that
> I'm trying to solve, so perhaps we can have a separate discussion about it.
> Perhaps this would more easily be solved by providing some sort of helper
> library for the lower level control of the device and wrapping that with
> V4L2 or DRM APIs.
That's more or less the idea of CDF ;-)
> > > If we really need to support display output within V4L2, shouldn't we
> > > instead improve interoperability between the two and use DRM/KMS
> > > exclusively for the output part? Then the problem of having to share
> > > drivers between subsystems goes away and we'll actually be using the
> > > right subsystem for the right job at hand.
> >
> > In the long term we definitely should improve interoperability between the
> > two. I'd go further than that, having one API for video capture and one
> > API for video output doesn't make much sense, except for historical
> > reasons.
>
> Having two separate subsystems has worked out pretty well so far. In my
> opinion having strong boundaries between subsystems helps with design.
I'm not saying we've made a mistake. A unified subsystem wouldn't have got it
right in the first place either anyway. My point is that the boundary has
collapsed on the hardware side, so I believe the software side will need to
follow somehow.
> > > Of course none of that is relevant to the topic of DT bindings, which is
> > > what we should probably be concentrating on.
> >
> > It actually is. Given that DT bindings must describe hardware, the scaler
> > (or encoder, or other entity) would use the same bindings regardless of
> > the Linux subsystem that will be involved. We thus need to make sure the
> > bindings will be usable on both sides.
>
> Perhaps a single driver could expose both interfaces?
That's one idea that has been proposed. I believe it would be simpler to
standardize a common API and have translation layers specific to V4L and KMS
in the core, instead of pushing that translation to all
panel/bridges/encoders/whatever drivers.
> > > I'm not at all opposed to the idea of CDF or the problems it tries to
> > > address. I don't think it necessarily should be a separate framework for
> > > reasons explained earlier. But even if it were to end up in a separate
> > > framework there's absolutely nothing preventing us from adding a DRM
> > > panel driver that hooks into CDF as a "backend" of sorts for panels that
> > > require something more complex than the simple-panel binding.
> >
> > Once again it's not about panel having complex needs, but more about using
> > simple panels in complex pipelines. I'm fine with the drm_panel
> > infrastructure, what I would like is DT bindings that describe connections
> > in a more future-proof way. The rest is fine.
>
> And I've already said elsewhere that the bindings in their current form
> are easily extensible to cater for the needs of CDF.
The simple panel bindings do not include any connection information, so we
could add that later when needed without having to deprecate, remove or
repurpose existing properties. The simple panel driver would need to be
extended, which isn't much of a problem (except that extending it with CDF
support might require changes to the users of the simple panel driver, which I
believe won't be happily accepted, but that's a different issue).
My concern is also on the other side. In the patches you've sent the tegra
driver uses a custom nvidia,panel property to reference the panel. That would
of course not be CDF-compatible, but there's no way around that at the moment
if we don't want to keep development of all ARM KMS drivers stalled for the
next 6 months. It boils down to the question of whether DT should be a stable
ABI, and I'm increasingly tempted to say that I don't care. I want to solve
issues we have on the display side, the firmware interface isn't my main
concern.
> > > But that's precisely the point. Why would we need to go back from the
> > > panel to the display controller? Especially for dumb panels that can't
> > > or don't have to be configured in any way. Even if they needed some sort
> > > of setup, why can't that be done from the display controller/output.
> > >
> > > Even given a setup where a DSI controller needs to write some registers
> > > in a panel upon initialization, I don't see why the reverse connection
> > > needs to be described. The fact alone that an output dereferences a
> > > panel's phandle should be enough to connect both of them and have any
> > > panel driver use the DSI controller that it's been attached to for the
> > > programming.
> > >
> > > That's very much analogous to how I2C works. There are no connections
> > > back to the I2C master from the slaves. Yet each I2C client driver
> > > manages to use the services provided by the I2C master to perform
> > > transactions on the I2C bus. In a similar way the DSI controller is the
> > > bus master that talks to DSI panels. DSI panels don't actively talk to
> > > the DSI controller.
> >
> > It's all about modeling video pipeline graphs in DT. To be able to walk
> > the graph we need to describe connections. Not having bidirectional
> > information means that we restrict the points at which we can start
> > walking the graph, potentially making our life much more difficult in the
> > future.
> >
> > What's so wrong about adding a port node and link information to the panel
> > DT node ? It describe what's there: the panel has one input, why not make
> > that explicit ?
>
> What's wrong with it is that there's no way to verify the soundness of
> the design by means of a full implementation because we're missing the
> majority of the pieces. Just putting the nodes into DT to provide some
> imaginary future-proofness isn't helpful either. Without any code that
> actually uses them they are useless.
>
> And again, why should we add them right away (while not needed) when
> they can easily be added in a backwards-compatible manner at some later
> point when there's actually any use for them and they can actually be
> tested in some larger framework?
It's the "easily" part I'm not sure about. I doubt we'll ever have any easy to
solve DT backward compatibility issue. However, as mentioned above, this
shouldn't be a show stopper. I'm thus fine with the way the proposed bindings
describe (or rather don't describe) the connection. However, I will then
expect your support in the future to implement the "easy" extension of the
bindings to support CDF. De we have a deal ? ;-)
> > > > > > > +static void panel_simple_enable(struct drm_panel *panel)
> > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > + struct panel_simple *p = to_panel_simple(panel);
> > > > > > > + int err;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > + if (p->enabled)
> > > > > > > + return;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > + err = regulator_enable(p->supply);
> > > > > > > + if (err < 0)
> > > > > > > + dev_err(panel->dev, "failed to enable supply: %d\n",
err);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is that really a non-fatal error ? Shouldn't the enable operation
> > > > > > return an int ?
> > > > >
> > > > > There's no way to propagate this in DRM, so why go through the
> > > > > trouble of returning the error? Furthermore, there's nothing that
> > > > > the caller could do to remedy the situation anyway.
> > > >
> > > > That's a DRM issue, which could be fixed. While the caller can't
> > > > remedy the situation, it should at least report the error to the
> > > > application instead of silently ignoring it.
> > >
> > > Perhaps. It's not really relevant to the discussion and can always be
> > > fixed in a subsequent patch.
> >
> > Most things can be fixed by a subsequent patch, that's not a good enough
> > reason not to address the known problems before pushing the code to
> > mainline (to clarify my point of view, there's no need to fix DRM to use
> > the return value before pushing this patch set to mainline, but I'd like
> > a v2 with an int return value).
>
> Why? What's the use of returning an error if you know up front that it
> can't be used? This should be changed if or when we "fix" DRM to propagate
> errors.
Because not doing so now will require us to change (potentially) lots of panel
drivers at that time. It's much easier to have each panel driver developer
implement the required code in his/her driver than having a single developer
refactoring the code later and have to touch all drivers. If your concern is
that the error paths won't be testable at the moment, you could easily already
add a WARN_ON() to the caller to catch problems.
> > > > > > Instead of hardcoding the modes in the driver, which would then
> > > > > > require to be updated for every new simple panel model (and we
> > > > > > know there are lots of them), why don't you specify the modes in
> > > > > > the panel DT node ? The simple panel driver would then become much
> > > > > > more generic. It would also allow board designers to tweak h/v
> > > > > > sync timings depending on the system requirements.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sigh... we keep second-guessing ourselves. Back at the time when
> > > > > power sequences were designed (and NAKed at the last minute), we all
> > > > > decided that the right thing to do would be to use specific
> > > > > compatible values for individual panels, because that would allow us
> > > > > to encode the power sequencing within the driver. And when we
> > > > > already have the panel model encoded in the compatible value, we
> > > > > might just as well encode the mode within the driver for that panel.
> > > > > Otherwise we'll have to keep adding the same mode timings for every
> > > > > board that uses the same panel.
> > > > >
> > > > > I do agree though that it might be useful to tweak the mode in case
> > > > > the default one doesn't work. How about we provide a means to
> > > > > override the mode encoded in the driver using one specified in the
> > > > > DT? That's obviously a backwards-compatible change, so it could be
> > > > > added if or when it becomes necessary.
> > > >
> > > > I share Tomi's point of view here. Your three panels use the same
> > > > power sequence, so I believe we should have a generic panel compatible
> > > > string that would use modes described in DT for the common case. Only
> > > > if a panel required something more complex which can't (or which
> > > > could, but won't for any reason) accurately be described in DT would
> > > > you need to extend the driver.
> > >
> > > I don't see the point quite frankly. You seem to be assuming that every
> > > panel will only be used in a single board.
> >
> > No, but in practice that's often the case, at least for boards with .dts
> > files in the mainline kernel.
> >
> > > However what you're proposing will require the mode timings to be
> > > repeated in every board's DT file, if the same panel is ever used on
> > > more than a single board.
> >
> > Is that a problem ? You could #include a .dtsi for the panel that would
> > specify the video mode if you want to avoid multiple copies.
>
> Yes, I don't think it's desirable to duplicate data needlessly in DT. It
> also makes the binding more difficult to use. If I know that the panel
> is one supported by the simple-panel binding, I can just go and add the
> right compatible value without having to bother looking up the mode
> timings and duplicating them. That way DT writers get to concern
> themselves only with the variable data.
I've had a quick chat with Dave Airlie and Hans de Goede yesterday about this.
As most panels will use standard timings, Hans proposed adding a timings
property that would reference the standard timings the panel uses (this could
be a string or integer defined in include/dt-bindings/...). In most case DT
would just have a single property to select the timings, and only in more
complex cases where the system designer wants to use custom timings would the
timings need to be manually defined.
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [RFR 2/2] drm/panel: Add simple panel support
From: Laurent Pinchart @ 2013-10-24 11:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Warren
Cc: Thierry Reding, Tomi Valkeinen, Dave Airlie, Laurent Pinchart,
Rob Herring, Pawel Moll, Mark Rutland, Ian Campbell,
devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Linux Fbdev development list
In-Reply-To: <52645428.9080607-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org>
Hi Stephen,
On Sunday 20 October 2013 23:07:36 Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 10/17/2013 12:07 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> ...
>
> >> As I said, anything that really needs a CDF binding to work
> >> likely isn't "simple" anymore, therefore a separate driver can
> >> easily be justified.
> >
> > The system as a whole would be more complex, but the panel could be
> > the same. We can't have two drivers for the same piece of hardware
> > in the DT world, as there will be a single compatible string and no
> > way to choose between the drivers (unlike the board code world that
> > could set device names to "foo- encoder-v4l2" or "foo-encoder-drm"
> > and live happily with that ever after).
>
> That's not true. We can certainly define two different compatible
> values for a piece of HW if we have to. We can easily control whether
> they are handled by the same or different drivers in the OS.
From an implementation point of view, sure. But from a conceptual point of
view, that would make the DT bindings pretty Linux-specific, with a
description of what the operating system should do instead of a description of
what the hardware looks like. My understanding is that we've tried pretty hard
in the past not to open that Pandora's box.
The case I'm mostly concerned about would be two different compatibility
strings to select whether the device should be handled by a KMS or V4L driver.
I don't think that's a good idea.
> Now, we should try to avoid this, because then that means that the
> original binding wasn't fully describing the HW. However, at least in
> the case of these simple LCD panels, it's hard to see that there is
> anything more than what's already in Thierry's binding. Remember, the
> binding is a description of the HW, not any Linux-internal details of
> how e.g. a CDF or DRM subsystem is supposed to use the HW; that had
> better be embodied into the driver or subsystem code, which aren't
> ABIs, and hence can be easily modified/enhanced.
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH] drm/omap: fix (un)registering irqs inside an irq handler
From: Rob Clark @ 2013-10-24 11:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tomi Valkeinen
Cc: Linux Fbdev development list, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
In-Reply-To: <1382597450-23066-1-git-send-email-tomi.valkeinen@ti.com>
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com> wrote:
> omapdrm (un)registers irqs inside an irq handler. The problem is that
> the (un)register function uses dispc_runtime_get/put() to enable the
> clocks, and those functions are not irq safe by default.
>
> This was kind of fixed in 48664b21aeeffb40c5fa06843f18052e2c4ec9ef
> (OMAPDSS: DISPC: set irq_safe for runtime PM), which makes dispc's
> runtime calls irq-safe.
>
> However, using pm_runtime_irq_safe in dispc makes the parent of dispc,
> dss, always enabled, effectively preventing PM for the whole DSS module.
>
> This patch makes omapdrm behave better by adding new irq (un)register
> functions that do not use dispc_runtime_get/put, and using those
> functions in interrupt context. Thus we can make dispc again
> non-irq-safe, allowing proper PM.
Looks good
Reviewed-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>
>
> Signed-off-by: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com>
> Cc: Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/omap_crtc.c | 6 +++---
> drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/omap_drv.h | 2 ++
> drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/omap_irq.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++----
> drivers/video/omap2/dss/dispc.c | 1 -
> 4 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/omap_crtc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/omap_crtc.c
> index 0fd2eb1..e6241c2 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/omap_crtc.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/omap_crtc.c
> @@ -411,7 +411,7 @@ static void omap_crtc_error_irq(struct omap_drm_irq *irq, uint32_t irqstatus)
> struct drm_crtc *crtc = &omap_crtc->base;
> DRM_ERROR("%s: errors: %08x\n", omap_crtc->name, irqstatus);
> /* avoid getting in a flood, unregister the irq until next vblank */
> - omap_irq_unregister(crtc->dev, &omap_crtc->error_irq);
> + __omap_irq_unregister(crtc->dev, &omap_crtc->error_irq);
> }
>
> static void omap_crtc_apply_irq(struct omap_drm_irq *irq, uint32_t irqstatus)
> @@ -421,13 +421,13 @@ static void omap_crtc_apply_irq(struct omap_drm_irq *irq, uint32_t irqstatus)
> struct drm_crtc *crtc = &omap_crtc->base;
>
> if (!omap_crtc->error_irq.registered)
> - omap_irq_register(crtc->dev, &omap_crtc->error_irq);
> + __omap_irq_register(crtc->dev, &omap_crtc->error_irq);
>
> if (!dispc_mgr_go_busy(omap_crtc->channel)) {
> struct omap_drm_private *priv > crtc->dev->dev_private;
> DBG("%s: apply done", omap_crtc->name);
> - omap_irq_unregister(crtc->dev, &omap_crtc->apply_irq);
> + __omap_irq_unregister(crtc->dev, &omap_crtc->apply_irq);
> queue_work(priv->wq, &omap_crtc->apply_work);
> }
> }
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/omap_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/omap_drv.h
> index 30b95b7..cfb6c2e 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/omap_drv.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/omap_drv.h
> @@ -145,6 +145,8 @@ irqreturn_t omap_irq_handler(DRM_IRQ_ARGS);
> void omap_irq_preinstall(struct drm_device *dev);
> int omap_irq_postinstall(struct drm_device *dev);
> void omap_irq_uninstall(struct drm_device *dev);
> +void __omap_irq_register(struct drm_device *dev, struct omap_drm_irq *irq);
> +void __omap_irq_unregister(struct drm_device *dev, struct omap_drm_irq *irq);
> void omap_irq_register(struct drm_device *dev, struct omap_drm_irq *irq);
> void omap_irq_unregister(struct drm_device *dev, struct omap_drm_irq *irq);
> int omap_drm_irq_uninstall(struct drm_device *dev);
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/omap_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/omap_irq.c
> index 9263db1..b08b902 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/omap_irq.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/omap_irq.c
> @@ -45,12 +45,11 @@ static void omap_irq_update(struct drm_device *dev)
> dispc_read_irqenable(); /* flush posted write */
> }
>
> -void omap_irq_register(struct drm_device *dev, struct omap_drm_irq *irq)
> +void __omap_irq_register(struct drm_device *dev, struct omap_drm_irq *irq)
> {
> struct omap_drm_private *priv = dev->dev_private;
> unsigned long flags;
>
> - dispc_runtime_get();
> spin_lock_irqsave(&list_lock, flags);
>
> if (!WARN_ON(irq->registered)) {
> @@ -60,14 +59,21 @@ void omap_irq_register(struct drm_device *dev, struct omap_drm_irq *irq)
> }
>
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&list_lock, flags);
> +}
> +
> +void omap_irq_register(struct drm_device *dev, struct omap_drm_irq *irq)
> +{
> + dispc_runtime_get();
> +
> + __omap_irq_register(dev, irq);
> +
> dispc_runtime_put();
> }
>
> -void omap_irq_unregister(struct drm_device *dev, struct omap_drm_irq *irq)
> +void __omap_irq_unregister(struct drm_device *dev, struct omap_drm_irq *irq)
> {
> unsigned long flags;
>
> - dispc_runtime_get();
> spin_lock_irqsave(&list_lock, flags);
>
> if (!WARN_ON(!irq->registered)) {
> @@ -77,6 +83,14 @@ void omap_irq_unregister(struct drm_device *dev, struct omap_drm_irq *irq)
> }
>
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&list_lock, flags);
> +}
> +
> +void omap_irq_unregister(struct drm_device *dev, struct omap_drm_irq *irq)
> +{
> + dispc_runtime_get();
> +
> + __omap_irq_unregister(dev, irq);
> +
> dispc_runtime_put();
> }
>
> diff --git a/drivers/video/omap2/dss/dispc.c b/drivers/video/omap2/dss/dispc.c
> index 4779750..02a7340 100644
> --- a/drivers/video/omap2/dss/dispc.c
> +++ b/drivers/video/omap2/dss/dispc.c
> @@ -3691,7 +3691,6 @@ static int __init omap_dispchw_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> }
>
> pm_runtime_enable(&pdev->dev);
> - pm_runtime_irq_safe(&pdev->dev);
>
> r = dispc_runtime_get();
> if (r)
> --
> 1.8.1.2
>
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [RFR 2/2] drm/panel: Add simple panel support
From: Thierry Reding @ 2013-10-24 11:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Laurent Pinchart
Cc: Laurent Pinchart, Tomi Valkeinen, Rob Herring, Pawel Moll,
Mark Rutland, Stephen Warren, Ian Campbell,
devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
linux-fbdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
dri-devel-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW, Dave Airlie
In-Reply-To: <2692478.1sYB6OvYJ1@avalon>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 14527 bytes --]
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 01:05:49PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Thierry,
>
> On Thursday 17 October 2013 14:46:20 Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 02:14:45PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > On Thursday 17 October 2013 13:41:40 Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 01:02:38PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday 17 October 2013 10:53:43 Thierry Reding wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > The point is that the video pipeline must be described in DT. Having a
> > > per-device way to represent connections would be a nightmare to support
> > > from an implementation point of view, hence the need for a generic way to
> > > describe them.
> >
> > Okay, so we're back to the need to describe pipelines in DT. At the risk
> > of sounding selfish: I don't care about pipelines. I just want us to
> > settle on a way to represent a dumb panel in DT so that it can be
> > enabled when it needs to. Furthermore I don't have any hardware that
> > exhibits any of these "advanced" features, so I'm totally unqualified to
> > work on any of this.
> >
> > Can we please try to be a little pragmatic here and solve one problem at
> > a time? I am aware that solving this for panels may require some amount
> > of foresight, but let's not try to solve everything at once at the risk
> > of not getting anything done at all.
>
> I won't force you to care about pipelines, and I don't think this is selfish
> at all :-)
>
> What I would like to ensure is that whatever bindings we come up with, they
> will not preclude us from adding pipeline support when needed (as I'm pretty
> sure it will be needed at some point).
Sure. I think I've explained elsewhere that I consider this easily
possible. Other people have said the same thing. If all we do is add
properties to a binding, then drivers written for an old binding will
have no problem continuing to work.
I also think that we're mostly being too scared. If ever the next device
comes around that requires explicit pipeline support to work, how likely
is it to have the exact same display as prior devices?
> > > > I'm not at all opposed to the idea of CDF or the problems it tries to
> > > > address. I don't think it necessarily should be a separate framework for
> > > > reasons explained earlier. But even if it were to end up in a separate
> > > > framework there's absolutely nothing preventing us from adding a DRM
> > > > panel driver that hooks into CDF as a "backend" of sorts for panels that
> > > > require something more complex than the simple-panel binding.
> > >
> > > Once again it's not about panel having complex needs, but more about using
> > > simple panels in complex pipelines. I'm fine with the drm_panel
> > > infrastructure, what I would like is DT bindings that describe connections
> > > in a more future-proof way. The rest is fine.
> >
> > And I've already said elsewhere that the bindings in their current form
> > are easily extensible to cater for the needs of CDF.
>
> The simple panel bindings do not include any connection information, so we
> could add that later when needed without having to deprecate, remove or
> repurpose existing properties.
Yes, I agree.
> The simple panel driver would need to be extended, which isn't much of a
> problem (except that extending it with CDF support might require changes
> to the users of the simple panel driver, which I believe won't be happily
> accepted, but that's a different issue).
That might be true. But that's just the way kernel development works. We
sometimes require major rework of APIs and we're actually pretty good at
pulling that off, so I don't worry too much about it.
Also, being the original author of the driver makes me the maintainer,
and if it should prove to be necessary I'm absolutely willing to add CDF
support.
> My concern is also on the other side. In the patches you've sent the tegra
> driver uses a custom nvidia,panel property to reference the panel. That would
> of course not be CDF-compatible, but there's no way around that at the moment
> if we don't want to keep development of all ARM KMS drivers stalled for the
> next 6 months.
Well, the nvidia,panel property is part of the display output and it is
an optional property. So the driver already needs to cope with it being
absent. If the display output driver is ever extended with CDF support
then we can just go and use CDF if CDF-specific properties exist, or we
fall back to nvidia,panel if that doesn't exist.
> It boils down to the question of whether DT should be a stable ABI, and
> I'm increasingly tempted to say that I don't care. I want to solve
> issues we have on the display side, the firmware interface isn't my main
> concern.
I wholeheartedly agree. In my opinion it is much more useful to come up
with a solution that works now, rather than discussing and arguing
things to death and not get anything done. If that means that I'll have
to maintain additional code, then so be it.
> > > > But that's precisely the point. Why would we need to go back from the
> > > > panel to the display controller? Especially for dumb panels that can't
> > > > or don't have to be configured in any way. Even if they needed some sort
> > > > of setup, why can't that be done from the display controller/output.
> > > >
> > > > Even given a setup where a DSI controller needs to write some registers
> > > > in a panel upon initialization, I don't see why the reverse connection
> > > > needs to be described. The fact alone that an output dereferences a
> > > > panel's phandle should be enough to connect both of them and have any
> > > > panel driver use the DSI controller that it's been attached to for the
> > > > programming.
> > > >
> > > > That's very much analogous to how I2C works. There are no connections
> > > > back to the I2C master from the slaves. Yet each I2C client driver
> > > > manages to use the services provided by the I2C master to perform
> > > > transactions on the I2C bus. In a similar way the DSI controller is the
> > > > bus master that talks to DSI panels. DSI panels don't actively talk to
> > > > the DSI controller.
> > >
> > > It's all about modeling video pipeline graphs in DT. To be able to walk
> > > the graph we need to describe connections. Not having bidirectional
> > > information means that we restrict the points at which we can start
> > > walking the graph, potentially making our life much more difficult in the
> > > future.
> > >
> > > What's so wrong about adding a port node and link information to the panel
> > > DT node ? It describe what's there: the panel has one input, why not make
> > > that explicit ?
> >
> > What's wrong with it is that there's no way to verify the soundness of
> > the design by means of a full implementation because we're missing the
> > majority of the pieces. Just putting the nodes into DT to provide some
> > imaginary future-proofness isn't helpful either. Without any code that
> > actually uses them they are useless.
> >
> > And again, why should we add them right away (while not needed) when
> > they can easily be added in a backwards-compatible manner at some later
> > point when there's actually any use for them and they can actually be
> > tested in some larger framework?
>
> It's the "easily" part I'm not sure about. I doubt we'll ever have any easy to
> solve DT backward compatibility issue. However, as mentioned above, this
> shouldn't be a show stopper. I'm thus fine with the way the proposed bindings
> describe (or rather don't describe) the connection. However, I will then
> expect your support in the future to implement the "easy" extension of the
> bindings to support CDF.
Again, I don't expect that to ever happen. But if it ever happens
anyway, then...
> Do we have a deal ? ;-)
Yes, we do.
> > > > > > > > +static void panel_simple_enable(struct drm_panel *panel)
> > > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > > + struct panel_simple *p = to_panel_simple(panel);
> > > > > > > > + int err;
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > + if (p->enabled)
> > > > > > > > + return;
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > + err = regulator_enable(p->supply);
> > > > > > > > + if (err < 0)
> > > > > > > > + dev_err(panel->dev, "failed to enable supply: %d\n",
> err);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is that really a non-fatal error ? Shouldn't the enable operation
> > > > > > > return an int ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There's no way to propagate this in DRM, so why go through the
> > > > > > trouble of returning the error? Furthermore, there's nothing that
> > > > > > the caller could do to remedy the situation anyway.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's a DRM issue, which could be fixed. While the caller can't
> > > > > remedy the situation, it should at least report the error to the
> > > > > application instead of silently ignoring it.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps. It's not really relevant to the discussion and can always be
> > > > fixed in a subsequent patch.
> > >
> > > Most things can be fixed by a subsequent patch, that's not a good enough
> > > reason not to address the known problems before pushing the code to
> > > mainline (to clarify my point of view, there's no need to fix DRM to use
> > > the return value before pushing this patch set to mainline, but I'd like
> > > a v2 with an int return value).
> >
> > Why? What's the use of returning an error if you know up front that it
> > can't be used? This should be changed if or when we "fix" DRM to propagate
> > errors.
>
> Because not doing so now will require us to change (potentially) lots of panel
> drivers at that time. It's much easier to have each panel driver developer
> implement the required code in his/her driver than having a single developer
> refactoring the code later and have to touch all drivers. If your concern is
> that the error paths won't be testable at the moment, you could easily already
> add a WARN_ON() to the caller to catch problems.
I don't mind fixing potentially many drivers. The conversion is pretty
mechanical and therefore easy. We even have tools such as coccinelle to
help with it. But we've probably spent more time arguing the point than
it would take to make this simple change, so I'll just go and change the
return value to an int and return an error.
Perhaps if I'm in the mood I'll even write up a patch to propagate the
error further.
> > > > > > > Instead of hardcoding the modes in the driver, which would then
> > > > > > > require to be updated for every new simple panel model (and we
> > > > > > > know there are lots of them), why don't you specify the modes in
> > > > > > > the panel DT node ? The simple panel driver would then become much
> > > > > > > more generic. It would also allow board designers to tweak h/v
> > > > > > > sync timings depending on the system requirements.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sigh... we keep second-guessing ourselves. Back at the time when
> > > > > > power sequences were designed (and NAKed at the last minute), we all
> > > > > > decided that the right thing to do would be to use specific
> > > > > > compatible values for individual panels, because that would allow us
> > > > > > to encode the power sequencing within the driver. And when we
> > > > > > already have the panel model encoded in the compatible value, we
> > > > > > might just as well encode the mode within the driver for that panel.
> > > > > > Otherwise we'll have to keep adding the same mode timings for every
> > > > > > board that uses the same panel.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I do agree though that it might be useful to tweak the mode in case
> > > > > > the default one doesn't work. How about we provide a means to
> > > > > > override the mode encoded in the driver using one specified in the
> > > > > > DT? That's obviously a backwards-compatible change, so it could be
> > > > > > added if or when it becomes necessary.
> > > > >
> > > > > I share Tomi's point of view here. Your three panels use the same
> > > > > power sequence, so I believe we should have a generic panel compatible
> > > > > string that would use modes described in DT for the common case. Only
> > > > > if a panel required something more complex which can't (or which
> > > > > could, but won't for any reason) accurately be described in DT would
> > > > > you need to extend the driver.
> > > >
> > > > I don't see the point quite frankly. You seem to be assuming that every
> > > > panel will only be used in a single board.
> > >
> > > No, but in practice that's often the case, at least for boards with .dts
> > > files in the mainline kernel.
> > >
> > > > However what you're proposing will require the mode timings to be
> > > > repeated in every board's DT file, if the same panel is ever used on
> > > > more than a single board.
> > >
> > > Is that a problem ? You could #include a .dtsi for the panel that would
> > > specify the video mode if you want to avoid multiple copies.
> >
> > Yes, I don't think it's desirable to duplicate data needlessly in DT. It
> > also makes the binding more difficult to use. If I know that the panel
> > is one supported by the simple-panel binding, I can just go and add the
> > right compatible value without having to bother looking up the mode
> > timings and duplicating them. That way DT writers get to concern
> > themselves only with the variable data.
>
> I've had a quick chat with Dave Airlie and Hans de Goede yesterday about this.
> As most panels will use standard timings, Hans proposed adding a timings
> property that would reference the standard timings the panel uses (this could
> be a string or integer defined in include/dt-bindings/...). In most case DT
> would just have a single property to select the timings, and only in more
> complex cases where the system designer wants to use custom timings would the
> timings need to be manually defined.
We can do the same thing within the kernel. We already have a list of
standard EDID/HDMI/CEA display modes, so we could similarly add a new
list of common display panel modes and make each driver reference that
instead of defining a custom one.
And that still enables us to add a property that would allow DT writers
to override the display mode if they need to.
Thierry
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH 3/7] video: exynos_mipi_dsim: Use the generic PHY driver
From: Olof Johansson @ 2013-10-24 14:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
In-Reply-To: <1381940896-9355-4-git-send-email-kishon@ti.com>
Hi Kishon,
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@ti.com> wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c b/drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c
> index 32e5406..00b3a52 100644
> --- a/drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c
> +++ b/drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c
> @@ -156,8 +157,7 @@ static int exynos_mipi_dsi_blank_mode(struct mipi_dsim_device *dsim, int power)
> exynos_mipi_regulator_enable(dsim);
>
> /* enable MIPI-DSI PHY. */
> - if (dsim->pd->phy_enable)
> - dsim->pd->phy_enable(pdev, true);
> + phy_power_on(dsim->phy);
>
> clk_enable(dsim->clock);
>
This introduces the below with exynos_defconfig:
../../drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c: In function
'exynos_mipi_dsi_blank_mode':
../../drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c:144:26: warning: unused
variable 'pdev' [-Wunused-variable]
struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(dsim->dev);
-Olof
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH 5/7] phy: Add driver for Exynos DP PHY
From: Tomasz Stanislawski @ 2013-10-24 15:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
In-Reply-To: <1381940896-9355-6-git-send-email-kishon@ti.com>
Hi Kishon,
Recently, I posted 'simple-phy' driver.
It is a part of patchset for HDMI enabling on Exynos4 using Device Tree.
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org/msg23655.html
The simple-phy was dedicated for single register PHYs like HDMI or DP.
Using such a generic phy may help to avoid code duplication.
Regards,
Tomasz Stanislawski
On 10/16/2013 06:28 PM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> From: Jingoo Han <jg1.han@samsung.com>
>
> Add a PHY provider driver for the Samsung Exynos SoC Display Port PHY.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jingoo Han <jg1.han@samsung.com>
> Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
> Cc: Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@samsung.com>
> Acked-by: Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>
> Signed-off-by: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@ti.com>
> ---
> .../devicetree/bindings/phy/samsung-phy.txt | 8 ++
> drivers/phy/Kconfig | 7 ++
> drivers/phy/Makefile | 1 +
> drivers/phy/phy-exynos-dp-video.c | 111 ++++++++++++++++++++
> 4 files changed, 127 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 drivers/phy/phy-exynos-dp-video.c
>
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH] drivers: video: exynos: Fix compiler Warning
From: Felipe Balbi @ 2013-10-24 15:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
In-Reply-To: <1382628454-11951-1-git-send-email-kishon@ti.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 632 bytes --]
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 08:57:34PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> Fixed the following compilation warning:
> ../../drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c: In function
> 'exynos_mipi_dsi_blank_mode':
> ../../drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c:144:26: warning: unused
> variable 'pdev' [-Wunused-variable]
> struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(dsim->dev);
>
> Reported-by: Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>
> Cc: Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@samsung.com>
> Signed-off-by: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@ti.com>
pretty obvious patch:
Reviewed-by: Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>
--
balbi
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply
* [PATCH] drivers: video: exynos: Fix compiler Warning
From: Kishon Vijay Abraham I @ 2013-10-24 15:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
In-Reply-To: <CAOesGMhwotSY-1WQmt+wtsrsH2m30VE=j-MwyhpYU3mt_PSPPw@mail.gmail.com>
Fixed the following compilation warning:
../../drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c: In function
'exynos_mipi_dsi_blank_mode':
../../drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c:144:26: warning: unused
variable 'pdev' [-Wunused-variable]
struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(dsim->dev);
Reported-by: Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>
Cc: Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@ti.com>
---
drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c b/drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c
index 00b3a52..cee9602 100644
--- a/drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c
+++ b/drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c
@@ -141,7 +141,6 @@ static int exynos_mipi_dsi_early_blank_mode(struct mipi_dsim_device *dsim,
static int exynos_mipi_dsi_blank_mode(struct mipi_dsim_device *dsim, int power)
{
- struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(dsim->dev);
struct mipi_dsim_lcd_driver *client_drv = dsim->dsim_lcd_drv;
struct mipi_dsim_lcd_device *client_dev = dsim->dsim_lcd_dev;
--
1.7.10.4
^ permalink raw reply related
* Re: [PATCH 3/7] video: exynos_mipi_dsim: Use the generic PHY driver
From: Sachin Kamat @ 2013-10-24 15:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
In-Reply-To: <CAOesGMhwotSY-1WQmt+wtsrsH2m30VE=j-MwyhpYU3mt_PSPPw@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Olof,
On 24 October 2013 20:00, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote:
> Hi Kishon,
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@ti.com> wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c b/drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c
>> index 32e5406..00b3a52 100644
>> --- a/drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c
>> +++ b/drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c
>> @@ -156,8 +157,7 @@ static int exynos_mipi_dsi_blank_mode(struct mipi_dsim_device *dsim, int power)
>> exynos_mipi_regulator_enable(dsim);
>>
>> /* enable MIPI-DSI PHY. */
>> - if (dsim->pd->phy_enable)
>> - dsim->pd->phy_enable(pdev, true);
>> + phy_power_on(dsim->phy);
>>
>> clk_enable(dsim->clock);
>>
>
> This introduces the below with exynos_defconfig:
>
> ../../drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c: In function
> 'exynos_mipi_dsi_blank_mode':
> ../../drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c:144:26: warning: unused
> variable 'pdev' [-Wunused-variable]
> struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(dsim->dev);
>
I have already submitted a patch to fix this [1]
[1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-fbdev&m\x138233359617936&w=2
--
With warm regards,
Sachin
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH 1/1] video: exynos_mipi_dsi: Remove unused variable
From: Kishon Vijay Abraham I @ 2013-10-24 15:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-fbdev
In-Reply-To: <1382333533-32740-1-git-send-email-sachin.kamat@linaro.org>
On Monday 21 October 2013 11:02 AM, Sachin Kamat wrote:
> 'pdev' is not used anymore (Removed vide commit 7e0be9f9 "video:
> exynos_mipi_dsim: Use the generic PHY driver"). Remove it and
> silence the following compilation warning:
> drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c:144:26: warning:
> unused variable ‘pdev’ [-Wunused-variable]
>
> Signed-off-by: Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@ti.com>
> ---
> drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c | 1 -
> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c b/drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c
> index 00b3a52..cee9602 100644
> --- a/drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c
> +++ b/drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c
> @@ -141,7 +141,6 @@ static int exynos_mipi_dsi_early_blank_mode(struct mipi_dsim_device *dsim,
>
> static int exynos_mipi_dsi_blank_mode(struct mipi_dsim_device *dsim, int power)
> {
> - struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(dsim->dev);
> struct mipi_dsim_lcd_driver *client_drv = dsim->dsim_lcd_drv;
> struct mipi_dsim_lcd_device *client_dev = dsim->dsim_lcd_dev;
>
>
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH 3/7] video: exynos_mipi_dsim: Use the generic PHY driver
From: Kishon Vijay Abraham I @ 2013-10-24 15:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
In-Reply-To: <CAK9yfHxaLsdFGXiCxvs+HpMSuY6xWd=CGPv-YfSkJqWSxE+f-w@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
On Thursday 24 October 2013 09:12 PM, Sachin Kamat wrote:
> Hi Olof,
>
> On 24 October 2013 20:00, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote:
>> Hi Kishon,
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@ti.com> wrote:
>>> diff --git a/drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c b/drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c
>>> index 32e5406..00b3a52 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c
>>> @@ -156,8 +157,7 @@ static int exynos_mipi_dsi_blank_mode(struct mipi_dsim_device *dsim, int power)
>>> exynos_mipi_regulator_enable(dsim);
>>>
>>> /* enable MIPI-DSI PHY. */
>>> - if (dsim->pd->phy_enable)
>>> - dsim->pd->phy_enable(pdev, true);
>>> + phy_power_on(dsim->phy);
>>>
>>> clk_enable(dsim->clock);
>>>
>>
>> This introduces the below with exynos_defconfig:
>>
>> ../../drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c: In function
>> 'exynos_mipi_dsi_blank_mode':
>> ../../drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c:144:26: warning: unused
>> variable 'pdev' [-Wunused-variable]
>> struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(dsim->dev);
>>
>
> I have already submitted a patch to fix this [1]
>
> [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-fbdev&m\x138233359617936&w=2
Sorry, missed that :-(
Thanks
Kishon
>
>
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH 3/7] video: exynos_mipi_dsim: Use the generic PHY driver
From: Olof Johansson @ 2013-10-24 17:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
In-Reply-To: <CAK9yfHxaLsdFGXiCxvs+HpMSuY6xWd=CGPv-YfSkJqWSxE+f-w@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@linaro.org> wrote:
> Hi Olof,
>
> On 24 October 2013 20:00, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote:
>> Hi Kishon,
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@ti.com> wrote:
>>> diff --git a/drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c b/drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c
>>> index 32e5406..00b3a52 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c
>>> @@ -156,8 +157,7 @@ static int exynos_mipi_dsi_blank_mode(struct mipi_dsim_device *dsim, int power)
>>> exynos_mipi_regulator_enable(dsim);
>>>
>>> /* enable MIPI-DSI PHY. */
>>> - if (dsim->pd->phy_enable)
>>> - dsim->pd->phy_enable(pdev, true);
>>> + phy_power_on(dsim->phy);
>>>
>>> clk_enable(dsim->clock);
>>>
>>
>> This introduces the below with exynos_defconfig:
>>
>> ../../drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c: In function
>> 'exynos_mipi_dsi_blank_mode':
>> ../../drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c:144:26: warning: unused
>> variable 'pdev' [-Wunused-variable]
>> struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(dsim->dev);
>>
>
> I have already submitted a patch to fix this [1]
>
> [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-fbdev&m\x138233359617936&w=2
Ah, I'm not subscribed to the fbdev list. Next time it might be a good
idea to cc the same lists as the original patch. But thanks for fixing
it!
-Olof
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH 3/7] video: exynos_mipi_dsim: Use the generic PHY driver
From: Sylwester Nawrocki @ 2013-10-24 21:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
In-Reply-To: <52694354.6030603@ti.com>
On 10/24/2013 05:57 PM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> On Thursday 24 October 2013 09:12 PM, Sachin Kamat wrote:
>> On 24 October 2013 20:00, Olof Johansson<olof@lixom.net> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I<kishon@ti.com> wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c b/drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c
>>>> index 32e5406..00b3a52 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c
>>>> @@ -156,8 +157,7 @@ static int exynos_mipi_dsi_blank_mode(struct mipi_dsim_device *dsim, int power)
>>>> exynos_mipi_regulator_enable(dsim);
>>>>
>>>> /* enable MIPI-DSI PHY. */
>>>> - if (dsim->pd->phy_enable)
>>>> - dsim->pd->phy_enable(pdev, true);
>>>> + phy_power_on(dsim->phy);
>>>>
>>>> clk_enable(dsim->clock);
>>>>
>>>
>>> This introduces the below with exynos_defconfig:
>>>
>>> ../../drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c: In function
>>> 'exynos_mipi_dsi_blank_mode':
>>> ../../drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c:144:26: warning: unused
>>> variable 'pdev' [-Wunused-variable]
>>> struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(dsim->dev);
Sorry about missing that, I only noticed this warning recently and didn't
get around to submit a patch.
>> I have already submitted a patch to fix this [1]
Thanks a lot guys for fixing this.
>> [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-fbdev&m\x138233359617936&w=2
>
> Sorry, missed that :-(
This MIPI DSIM driver is affectively a dead code in the mainline now, once
Exynos become a dt-only platform. I guess it can be deleted for 3.14, once
S5P gets converted to the device tree. The new driver using CDF is basically
a complete rewrite. Or device tree support should be added to that driver,
but I believe it doesn't make sense without CDF.
--
Regards,
Sylwester
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [RFR 2/2] drm/panel: Add simple panel support
From: Stephen Warren @ 2013-10-24 22:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Laurent Pinchart
Cc: Thierry Reding, Tomi Valkeinen, Dave Airlie, Laurent Pinchart,
Rob Herring, Pawel Moll, Mark Rutland, Ian Campbell,
devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Linux Fbdev development list
In-Reply-To: <3278905.VOXO7bPE7e@avalon>
On 10/24/2013 12:20 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On Sunday 20 October 2013 23:07:36 Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 10/17/2013 12:07 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>>> As I said, anything that really needs a CDF binding to work
>>>> likely isn't "simple" anymore, therefore a separate driver can
>>>> easily be justified.
>>>
>>> The system as a whole would be more complex, but the panel could be
>>> the same. We can't have two drivers for the same piece of hardware
>>> in the DT world, as there will be a single compatible string and no
>>> way to choose between the drivers (unlike the board code world that
>>> could set device names to "foo- encoder-v4l2" or "foo-encoder-drm"
>>> and live happily with that ever after).
>>
>> That's not true. We can certainly define two different compatible
>> values for a piece of HW if we have to. We can easily control whether
>> they are handled by the same or different drivers in the OS.
>
> From an implementation point of view, sure. But from a conceptual point of
> view, that would make the DT bindings pretty Linux-specific, with a
> description of what the operating system should do instead of a description of
> what the hardware looks like. My understanding is that we've tried pretty hard
> in the past not to open that Pandora's box.
>
> The case I'm mostly concerned about would be two different compatibility
> strings to select whether the device should be handled by a KMS or V4L driver.
> I don't think that's a good idea.
I wouldn't think of the two compatible values as selecting different
specific Linux drivers, but rather they simply describe the HW in
different levels of detail. The fact that if we know a certain level of
detail about the HW means that Linux can and does create a KMS driver
rather than a V4L2 driver seems like a detail that's completely hidden
inside the OS.
^ permalink raw reply
* [PATCH 1/1] video: exynos_mipi_dsi: Unlock the mutex before returning
From: Sachin Kamat @ 2013-10-25 5:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-fbdev
Mutex should be unlocked before returning. Fixes mutex lock-unlock
imbalance issue.
Signed-off-by: Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@linaro.org>
---
drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi_common.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi_common.c b/drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi_common.c
index 520fc9b..649d9e6 100644
--- a/drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi_common.c
+++ b/drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi_common.c
@@ -376,6 +376,7 @@ int exynos_mipi_dsi_rd_data(struct mipi_dsim_device *dsim, unsigned int data_id,
"data id %x is not supported current DSI spec.\n",
data_id);
+ mutex_unlock(&dsim->lock);
return -EINVAL;
}
--
1.7.9.5
^ permalink raw reply related
* Re: [PATCH 1/1] video: exynos_mipi_dsi: Remove unused variable
From: Sachin Kamat @ 2013-10-25 5:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-fbdev
In-Reply-To: <1382333533-32740-1-git-send-email-sachin.kamat@linaro.org>
On 24 October 2013 21:25, Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@ti.com> wrote:
> On Monday 21 October 2013 11:02 AM, Sachin Kamat wrote:
>> 'pdev' is not used anymore (Removed vide commit 7e0be9f9 "video:
>> exynos_mipi_dsim: Use the generic PHY driver"). Remove it and
>> silence the following compilation warning:
>> drivers/video/exynos/exynos_mipi_dsi.c:144:26: warning:
>> unused variable ‘pdev’ [-Wunused-variable]
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@linaro.org>
> Reviewed-by: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@ti.com>
Thanks Kishon.
I believe this patch should go through Greg's tree as your other
patches are lined up there?
--
With warm regards,
Sachin
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [RFR 2/2] drm/panel: Add simple panel support
From: Thierry Reding @ 2013-10-25 8:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Warren
Cc: Laurent Pinchart, Tomi Valkeinen, Dave Airlie, Laurent Pinchart,
Rob Herring, Pawel Moll, Mark Rutland, Ian Campbell,
devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Linux Fbdev development list
In-Reply-To: <526999DA.7080409-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3868 bytes --]
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:06:18PM +0100, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 10/24/2013 12:20 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > Hi Stephen,
> >
> > On Sunday 20 October 2013 23:07:36 Stephen Warren wrote:
> >> On 10/17/2013 12:07 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >> ...
> >>
> >>>> As I said, anything that really needs a CDF binding to work
> >>>> likely isn't "simple" anymore, therefore a separate driver can
> >>>> easily be justified.
> >>>
> >>> The system as a whole would be more complex, but the panel could be
> >>> the same. We can't have two drivers for the same piece of hardware
> >>> in the DT world, as there will be a single compatible string and no
> >>> way to choose between the drivers (unlike the board code world that
> >>> could set device names to "foo- encoder-v4l2" or "foo-encoder-drm"
> >>> and live happily with that ever after).
> >>
> >> That's not true. We can certainly define two different compatible
> >> values for a piece of HW if we have to. We can easily control whether
> >> they are handled by the same or different drivers in the OS.
> >
> > From an implementation point of view, sure. But from a conceptual point of
> > view, that would make the DT bindings pretty Linux-specific, with a
> > description of what the operating system should do instead of a description of
> > what the hardware looks like. My understanding is that we've tried pretty hard
> > in the past not to open that Pandora's box.
> >
> > The case I'm mostly concerned about would be two different compatibility
> > strings to select whether the device should be handled by a KMS or V4L driver.
> > I don't think that's a good idea.
>
> I wouldn't think of the two compatible values as selecting different
> specific Linux drivers, but rather they simply describe the HW in
> different levels of detail. The fact that if we know a certain level of
> detail about the HW means that Linux can and does create a KMS driver
> rather than a V4L2 driver seems like a detail that's completely hidden
> inside the OS.
I've had a somewhat similar idea the other day but couldn't really put
it into words. Interestingly someone else mentioned a similar concept in
a different thread which I think describes what I had in mind as well.
I was wondering if we couldn't use two compatible values to denote two
interfaces that the device implements. Something along the lines of:
compatible = "vendor,block-name", "encoder";
So a driver could primarily match on "vendor,block-name", but at the
same time it could use the additional information of being required to
implement "encoder" to expose an additonal interface.
I suppose that perhaps something like a device_type property could be
used for that as well, and that might even be the more correct thing to
do.
We already do something similar to make GPIO controllers expose an
interrupt chip by adding an interrupt-controller property. We also use
the gpio-controller property to mark a device node as exposing the GPIO
interface for that matter.
So if a HW block can actually implement two different interfaces, each
of them being optional, then there should be ways to represent that in
DT as well. We already do that for "simpler" HW blocks, so there's no
reason we shouldn't be able to do the same with multimedia components.
If it's really an encoder, though, the problem might be different,
though, since the interface (at a hardware or functional level if you
will) remains the same. But I think in that case it's something that
needs to be figured out internally by the OS. In my opinion, if we are
in a situation where we have two different drivers in two subsystems for
the same device, then we're doing something wrong and it should be fixed
at that level, not by quirking the DT into making a decision for us.
Thierry
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [RFR 2/2] drm/panel: Add simple panel support
From: Sylwester Nawrocki @ 2013-10-25 10:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tomi Valkeinen
Cc: Laurent Pinchart, Thierry Reding, Laurent Pinchart, Rob Herring,
Pawel Moll, Mark Rutland, Stephen Warren, Ian Campbell,
devicetree, linux-fbdev, dri-devel, Dave Airlie, linux-media,
Guennadi Liakhovetski
In-Reply-To: <5268FBE3.80000@ti.com>
On 10/24/2013 12:52 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 24/10/13 13:40, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>
>>> panel {
>>> remote =<&remote-endpoint>;
>>> common-video-property =<asd>;
>>> };
>>>
>>> panel {
>>> port {
>>> endpoint {
>>> remote =<&remote-endpoint>;
>>> common-video-property =<asd>;
>>> };
>>> };
>>> };
>>
>> Please note that the common video properties would be in the panel node, not
>> in the endpoint node (unless you have specific requirements to do so, which
>> isn't the common case).
>
> Hmm, well, the panel driver must look for its properties either in the
> panel node, or in the endpoint node (I guess it could look them from
> both, but that doesn't sound good).
Presumably the OS could be searching for port node and any endpoint node
inside it first. If that's not found then it could be parsing the panel
node.
Please note that a port node may be required even if there is only one
port, when there are multiple physical bus interfaces, e.g. at an LCD
controller and only one of them is used. The reg property would select
the physical bus interface.
I wonder if a property like #video-port or #video-endpoint could be used
to indicate that a node contains video bus properties. Probably it's too
late to introduce it now and make it a required property for the endpoint
nodes or nodes containing the common video properties.
> If you write the panel driver, and in all your cases the properties work
> fine in the panel node, does that mean they'll work fine with everybody?
It's likely not safe to assume so. In V4L data bus properties are specified
a both the receiver and the transmitter endpoint nodes separately.
> I guess there are different kinds of properties. Something like a
> regulator is obviously property of the panel. But anything related to
> the video itself, like DPI's bus width, or perhaps even something like
> "orientation" if the panel supports such, could need to be in the
> endpoint node.
If we use port/endpoint nodes it all seems clear, the video bus properties
are put in an endpoint node.
But since we are considering a simplified binding all the properties would
be placed in the panel or display controller node.
> But yes, I understand what you mean. With "common-video-property" I
> meant common properties like DPI bus width.
>
>>> If that can be supported in the SW by adding complexity to a few functions,
>>> and it covers practically all the panels, isn't it worth it?
>>>
>>> Note that I have not tried this, so I don't know if there are issues.
>>> It's just a thought. Even if there's need for a endpoint node, perhaps
>>> the port node can be made optional.
>>
>> It can be worth it, as long as we make sure that simplified bindings cover the
>> needs of the generic code.
>>
>> We could assume that, if the port subnode isn't present, the device will have
>> a single port, with a single endpoint. However, isn't the number of endpoints
>
> Right.
>
>> a system property rather than a device property ? If a port of a device is
>
> Yes.
>
>> connected to two remote ports it will require two endpoints. We could select
>> the simplified or full bindings based on the system topology though.
Yes, I guess it's all about the system topology. Any simplified binding
would
work only for very simple configuration like single-output LCD
controller with
single panel attached to it.
> The drivers should not know about simplified/normal bindings. They
> should use CDF DT helper functions to get the port and endpoint
> information. The helper functions would do the assuming.
Yes, anyway all the parsing is supposed to be done within the helpers.
--
Thanks,
Sylwester
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCHv7][ 1/6] video: imxfb: Introduce regulator support.
From: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD @ 2013-10-25 11:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
In-Reply-To: <1382605103-9595-1-git-send-email-denis@eukrea.com>
On 10:58 Thu 24 Oct , Denis Carikli wrote:
> This commit is based on the following commit by Fabio Estevam:
> 4344429 video: mxsfb: Introduce regulator support
I've too many patch version in my mailbox specially without any description
about what is updated between version can explain this.
>
> Cc: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@freescale.com>
> Cc: Sascha Hauer <kernel@pengutronix.de>
> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> Cc: Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>
> Cc: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com>
> Cc: linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Eric Bénard <eric@eukrea.com>
> Signed-off-by: Denis Carikli <denis@eukrea.com>
> ---
> drivers/video/imxfb.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/video/imxfb.c b/drivers/video/imxfb.c
> index 44ee678..4bf3837 100644
> --- a/drivers/video/imxfb.c
> +++ b/drivers/video/imxfb.c
> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
> #include <linux/cpufreq.h>
> #include <linux/clk.h>
> #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> +#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
> #include <linux/dma-mapping.h>
> #include <linux/io.h>
> #include <linux/math64.h>
> @@ -145,6 +146,7 @@ struct imxfb_info {
> struct clk *clk_ipg;
> struct clk *clk_ahb;
> struct clk *clk_per;
> + struct regulator *reg_lcd;
> enum imxfb_type devtype;
> bool enabled;
>
> @@ -563,12 +565,23 @@ static void imxfb_exit_backlight(struct imxfb_info *fbi)
>
> static void imxfb_enable_controller(struct imxfb_info *fbi)
> {
> + int ret;
>
> if (fbi->enabled)
> return;
>
> pr_debug("Enabling LCD controller\n");
>
> + if (fbi->reg_lcd) {
> + ret = regulator_enable(fbi->reg_lcd);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(&fbi->pdev->dev,
> + "lcd regulator enable failed with error: %d\n",
> + ret);
> + return;
> + }
> + }
> +
> writel(fbi->screen_dma, fbi->regs + LCDC_SSA);
>
> /* panning offset 0 (0 pixel offset) */
> @@ -597,6 +610,8 @@ static void imxfb_enable_controller(struct imxfb_info *fbi)
>
> static void imxfb_disable_controller(struct imxfb_info *fbi)
> {
> + int ret;
> +
> if (!fbi->enabled)
> return;
>
> @@ -613,6 +628,14 @@ static void imxfb_disable_controller(struct imxfb_info *fbi)
> fbi->enabled = false;
>
> writel(0, fbi->regs + LCDC_RMCR);
> +
> + if (fbi->reg_lcd) {
> + ret = regulator_disable(fbi->reg_lcd);
> + if (ret)
> + dev_err(&fbi->pdev->dev,
> + "lcd regulator disable failed with error: %d\n",
> + ret);
> + }
> }
>
> static int imxfb_blank(int blank, struct fb_info *info)
> @@ -1020,6 +1043,12 @@ static int imxfb_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> goto failed_register;
> }
>
> + fbi->reg_lcd = devm_regulator_get(&pdev->dev, "lcd");
> + if (IS_ERR(fbi->reg_lcd)) {
> + dev_info(&pdev->dev, "No lcd regulator used.\n");
> + fbi->reg_lcd = NULL;
> + }
> +
> imxfb_enable_controller(fbi);
> fbi->pdev = pdev;
> #ifdef PWMR_BACKLIGHT_AVAILABLE
> --
> 1.7.9.5
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fbdev" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH 1/9] backlight: atmel-pwm-bl: fix reported brightness
From: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD @ 2013-10-25 11:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johan Hovold
Cc: Richard Purdie, Jingoo Han, Nicolas Ferre, Tomi Valkeinen,
Andrew Morton, linux-fbdev, linux-kernel, stable
In-Reply-To: <1382522143-32072-2-git-send-email-jhovold@gmail.com>
On 11:55 Wed 23 Oct , Johan Hovold wrote:
> The driver supports 16-bit brightness values, but the value returned
> from get_brightness was truncated to eight bits.
>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Acked-by: Jingoo Han <jg1.han@samsung.com>
> Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <jhovold@gmail.com>
> ---
> drivers/video/backlight/atmel-pwm-bl.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/video/backlight/atmel-pwm-bl.c b/drivers/video/backlight/atmel-pwm-bl.c
> index 66885fb..8aac273 100644
> --- a/drivers/video/backlight/atmel-pwm-bl.c
> +++ b/drivers/video/backlight/atmel-pwm-bl.c
> @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ static int atmel_pwm_bl_set_intensity(struct backlight_device *bd)
> static int atmel_pwm_bl_get_intensity(struct backlight_device *bd)
> {
> struct atmel_pwm_bl *pwmbl = bl_get_data(bd);
> - u8 intensity;
> + u32 intensity;
>
> if (pwmbl->pdata->pwm_active_low) {
> intensity = pwm_channel_readl(&pwmbl->pwmc, PWM_CDTY) -
> @@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ static int atmel_pwm_bl_get_intensity(struct backlight_device *bd)
> pwm_channel_readl(&pwmbl->pwmc, PWM_CDTY);
> }
>
> - return intensity;
> + return (u16)intensity;
no cast mask it
> }
>
> static int atmel_pwm_bl_init_pwm(struct atmel_pwm_bl *pwmbl)
> --
> 1.8.4
>
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH 2/9] backlight: atmel-pwm-bl: fix gpio polarity in remove
From: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD @ 2013-10-25 11:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johan Hovold
Cc: Richard Purdie, Jingoo Han, Nicolas Ferre, Tomi Valkeinen,
Andrew Morton, linux-fbdev, linux-kernel, stable
In-Reply-To: <1382522143-32072-3-git-send-email-jhovold@gmail.com>
On 11:55 Wed 23 Oct , Johan Hovold wrote:
> Make sure to honour gpio polarity also at remove so that the backlight
> is actually disabled on boards with active-low enable pin.
>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Acked-by: Jingoo Han <jg1.han@samsung.com>
> Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <jhovold@gmail.com>
> ---
> drivers/video/backlight/atmel-pwm-bl.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/video/backlight/atmel-pwm-bl.c b/drivers/video/backlight/atmel-pwm-bl.c
> index 8aac273..3cb0094 100644
> --- a/drivers/video/backlight/atmel-pwm-bl.c
> +++ b/drivers/video/backlight/atmel-pwm-bl.c
> @@ -205,8 +205,10 @@ static int atmel_pwm_bl_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> {
> struct atmel_pwm_bl *pwmbl = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
>
> - if (pwmbl->gpio_on != -1)
> - gpio_set_value(pwmbl->gpio_on, 0);
> + if (pwmbl->gpio_on != -1) {
here we need to use gpio_is_valid
> + gpio_set_value(pwmbl->gpio_on,
> + 0 ^ pwmbl->pdata->on_active_low);
> + }
> pwm_channel_disable(&pwmbl->pwmc);
> pwm_channel_free(&pwmbl->pwmc);
>
> --
> 1.8.4
>
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH 4/9] backlight: atmel-pwm-bl: clean up probe error handling
From: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD @ 2013-10-25 11:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johan Hovold
Cc: Richard Purdie, Jingoo Han, Nicolas Ferre, Tomi Valkeinen,
Andrew Morton, linux-fbdev, linux-kernel
In-Reply-To: <1382522143-32072-5-git-send-email-jhovold@gmail.com>
On 11:55 Wed 23 Oct , Johan Hovold wrote:
> Clean up probe error handling by checking parameters before any
> allocations and removing an obsolete error label. Also remove
> unnecessary reset of private gpio number.
>
> Acked-by: Jingoo Han <jg1.han@samsung.com>
> Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <jhovold@gmail.com>
> ---
> drivers/video/backlight/atmel-pwm-bl.c | 31 ++++++++++++-------------------
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/video/backlight/atmel-pwm-bl.c b/drivers/video/backlight/atmel-pwm-bl.c
> index cc5a5ed..52a8134 100644
> --- a/drivers/video/backlight/atmel-pwm-bl.c
> +++ b/drivers/video/backlight/atmel-pwm-bl.c
> @@ -126,40 +126,33 @@ static int atmel_pwm_bl_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> struct atmel_pwm_bl *pwmbl;
> int retval;
>
> + pdata = dev_get_platdata(&pdev->dev);
> + if (!pdata)
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> + if (pdata->pwm_compare_max < pdata->pwm_duty_max ||
> + pdata->pwm_duty_min > pdata->pwm_duty_max ||
> + pdata->pwm_frequency = 0)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> pwmbl = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(struct atmel_pwm_bl),
> GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!pwmbl)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> pwmbl->pdev = pdev;
> -
> - pdata = dev_get_platdata(&pdev->dev);
> - if (!pdata) {
> - retval = -ENODEV;
> - goto err_free_mem;
> - }
> -
> - if (pdata->pwm_compare_max < pdata->pwm_duty_max ||
> - pdata->pwm_duty_min > pdata->pwm_duty_max ||
> - pdata->pwm_frequency = 0) {
> - retval = -EINVAL;
> - goto err_free_mem;
> - }
> -
> pwmbl->pdata = pdata;
> pwmbl->gpio_on = pdata->gpio_on;
>
> retval = pwm_channel_alloc(pdata->pwm_channel, &pwmbl->pwmc);
> if (retval)
> - goto err_free_mem;
> + return retval;
>
> if (pwmbl->gpio_on != -1) {
gpio_is_valid here
> retval = devm_gpio_request(&pdev->dev, pwmbl->gpio_on,
> "gpio_atmel_pwm_bl");
> - if (retval) {
> - pwmbl->gpio_on = -1;
> + if (retval)
> goto err_free_pwm;
> - }
>
> /* Turn display off by default. */
> retval = gpio_direction_output(pwmbl->gpio_on,
> @@ -197,7 +190,7 @@ static int atmel_pwm_bl_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> err_free_pwm:
> pwm_channel_free(&pwmbl->pwmc);
> -err_free_mem:
> +
> return retval;
> }
>
> --
> 1.8.4
>
^ permalink raw reply
page: next (older) | prev (newer) | latest
- recent:[subjects (threaded)|topics (new)|topics (active)]
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox