linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: support booloader enabled display

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 2 Jul 2019 08:38:09 -0700
From:   Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>
To:     Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
Cc:     dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        freedreno <freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        aarch64-laptops@...ts.linaro.org,
        linux-clk <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rob Clark <robdclark@...omium.org>,
        Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: support booloader enabled display

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 8:20 AM Laurent Pinchart
<laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> Thank you for the patch.
>
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 08:01:43AM -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
> > From: Rob Clark <robdclark@...omium.org>
> >
> > Request the enable gpio ASIS to avoid disabling bridge during probe, if
> > already enabled.  And if already enabled, defer enabling runpm until
> > attach to avoid cutting off the power to the bridge.
> >
> > Once we get to attach, we know panel and drm driver are probed
> > successfully, so at this point it i s safe to enable runpm and reset the
> > bridge.  If we do it earlier, we kill efifb (in the case that panel or
> > drm driver do not probe successfully, giving the user no way to see what
> > is going on.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@...omium.org>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c | 12 ++++++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
> > index 7a046bcdd81b..8bdc33576992 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
> > @@ -257,6 +257,12 @@ static int ti_sn_bridge_attach(struct drm_bridge *bridge)
> >                                                  .node = NULL,
> >                                                };
> >
> > +     if (gpiod_get_value(pdata->enable_gpio)) {
> > +             pm_runtime_enable(pdata->dev);
>
> Does this need to be balanced with a pm_runtime_disable() call ? Bridges
> can be attached and detached at runtime when reloading the display
> controller drivers, so you need to ensure that detach/re-attach cycles
> work.

It should only be a problem if things don't get shut down properly in
the detach/unload path.

> > +             ti_sn_bridge_resume(pdata->dev);
> > +             ti_sn_bridge_suspend(pdata->dev);
> > +     }
> > +
> >       ret = drm_connector_init(bridge->dev, &pdata->connector,
> >                                &ti_sn_bridge_connector_funcs,
> >                                DRM_MODE_CONNECTOR_eDP);
> > @@ -813,7 +819,7 @@ static int ti_sn_bridge_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> >       dev_set_drvdata(&client->dev, pdata);
> >
> >       pdata->enable_gpio = devm_gpiod_get(pdata->dev, "enable",
> > -                                         GPIOD_OUT_LOW);
> > +                                         GPIOD_ASIS);
> >       if (IS_ERR(pdata->enable_gpio)) {
> >               DRM_ERROR("failed to get enable gpio from DT\n");
> >               ret = PTR_ERR(pdata->enable_gpio);
> > @@ -843,7 +849,9 @@ static int ti_sn_bridge_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> >       if (ret)
> >               return ret;
> >
> > -     pm_runtime_enable(pdata->dev);
> > +     if (!gpiod_get_value(pdata->enable_gpio)) {
> > +             pm_runtime_enable(pdata->dev);
> > +     }
>
> If I understand the issue correctly, this is part of an effort to avoid
> disabling a potentially display output until we get as close as possible
> to display handover, right ? Is there a drawback in always enabling
> runtime PM when the bridge is attached instead of at probe time ? I
> think we need to come up with a set of rules for bridge driver authors,
> otherwise we'll end up with incompatible expectations of bridge drivers
> and display controller drivers.

That would simplify things slightly.. but perhaps w/ the slight
downside, if things booted with clk running or regulator enabled, but
the panel not actually enabled, then you wouldn't shut things down
until attach.

I'm also about to send a patch that adds debugfs to dump status
registers (and a related fix that I found from that).. which will need
to do a runpm get/put, and could potentially happen before attach (ie.
if bridge driver is probed but drm driver is not).

Maybe those are edge cases not worth worrying about.

I suppose also it is possible that some bridge driver would want to
read out a hw revision register in probe to see if it is a version of
hw that it supports.  But fortunately that is not a problem with this
particular bridge.

In the end, I suspect the first time you bring up some platform with
display running, you are going to have some patches spanning clk /
bridge / display / etc, no matter what we do ;-)

BR,
-R

> >
> >       i2c_set_clientdata(client, pdata);
> >
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Laurent Pinchart