| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAF6AEGvXkeOrHGMHo=C1zXhDc9rquQJc8oGDB4VDfhTfdtqyTg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 14:43:48 -0700
From: Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>
To: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc: Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>,
Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>,
Laurent Pinchart <Laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Rob Clark <robdclark@...omium.org>,
Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...l.net>,
Jonas Karlman <jonas@...boo.se>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
Sean Paul <seanpaul@...omium.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: Implement lane
reordering + polarity
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 2:03 PM Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> The ti-sn65dsi86 MIPI DSI to eDP bridge chip supports arbitrary
> remapping of eDP lanes and also polarity inversion. Both of these
> features have been described in the device tree bindings for the
> device since the beginning but were never implemented in the driver.
> Implement both of them.
>
> Part of this change also allows you to (via the same device tree
> bindings) specify to use fewer than the max number of DP lanes that
> the panel reports. This could be useful if your display supports more
> lanes but only a few are hooked up on your board.
>
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
> Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
Reviewed-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>
> ---
> This patch is based upon my my outstanding series[1] not because there
> is any real requirement but simply to avoid merge conflicts. I
> believe that my previous series is ready to land. If, however, you'd
> prefer that I rebase this patch somewhere atop something else then
> please shout.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200430194617.197510-1-dianders@chromium.org
>
> Changes in v2:
> - Use SN_MAX_DP_LANES instead of 4 in one place.
> - Comment that we aren't doing full validation of dts params.
> - Check dp_lanes <= SN_MAX_DP_LANES to avoid buffer overrun.
> - Add missing of_node_put()
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c | 82 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 68 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
> index 1a125423eb07..534b712dccf8 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
> @@ -50,8 +50,12 @@
> #define SN_CHA_VERTICAL_BACK_PORCH_REG 0x36
> #define SN_CHA_HORIZONTAL_FRONT_PORCH_REG 0x38
> #define SN_CHA_VERTICAL_FRONT_PORCH_REG 0x3A
> +#define SN_LN_ASSIGN_REG 0x59
> +#define LN_ASSIGN_WIDTH 2
> #define SN_ENH_FRAME_REG 0x5A
> #define VSTREAM_ENABLE BIT(3)
> +#define LN_POLRS_OFFSET 4
> +#define LN_POLRS_MASK 0xf0
> #define SN_DATA_FORMAT_REG 0x5B
> #define BPP_18_RGB BIT(0)
> #define SN_HPD_DISABLE_REG 0x5C
> @@ -98,6 +102,7 @@
>
> #define SN_REGULATOR_SUPPLY_NUM 4
>
> +#define SN_MAX_DP_LANES 4
> #define SN_NUM_GPIOS 4
>
> /**
> @@ -115,6 +120,8 @@
> * @enable_gpio: The GPIO we toggle to enable the bridge.
> * @supplies: Data for bulk enabling/disabling our regulators.
> * @dp_lanes: Count of dp_lanes we're using.
> + * @ln_assign: Value to program to the LN_ASSIGN register.
> + * @ln_polr: Value for the 4-bit LN_POLRS field of SN_ENH_FRAME_REG.
> *
> * @gchip: If we expose our GPIOs, this is used.
> * @gchip_output: A cache of whether we've set GPIOs to output. This
> @@ -140,6 +147,8 @@ struct ti_sn_bridge {
> struct gpio_desc *enable_gpio;
> struct regulator_bulk_data supplies[SN_REGULATOR_SUPPLY_NUM];
> int dp_lanes;
> + u8 ln_assign;
> + u8 ln_polrs;
>
> struct gpio_chip gchip;
> DECLARE_BITMAP(gchip_output, SN_NUM_GPIOS);
> @@ -707,26 +716,20 @@ static void ti_sn_bridge_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge)
> int dp_rate_idx;
> unsigned int val;
> int ret = -EINVAL;
> + int max_dp_lanes;
>
> - /*
> - * Run with the maximum number of lanes that the DP sink supports.
> - *
> - * Depending use cases, we might want to revisit this later because:
> - * - It's plausible that someone may have run fewer lines to the
> - * sink than the sink actually supports, assuming that the lines
> - * will just be driven at a higher rate.
> - * - The DP spec seems to indicate that it's more important to minimize
> - * the number of lanes than the link rate.
> - *
> - * If we do revisit, it would be important to measure the power impact.
> - */
> - pdata->dp_lanes = ti_sn_get_max_lanes(pdata);
> + max_dp_lanes = ti_sn_get_max_lanes(pdata);
> + pdata->dp_lanes = min(pdata->dp_lanes, max_dp_lanes);
>
> /* DSI_A lane config */
> - val = CHA_DSI_LANES(4 - pdata->dsi->lanes);
> + val = CHA_DSI_LANES(SN_MAX_DP_LANES - pdata->dsi->lanes);
> regmap_update_bits(pdata->regmap, SN_DSI_LANES_REG,
> CHA_DSI_LANES_MASK, val);
>
> + regmap_write(pdata->regmap, SN_LN_ASSIGN_REG, pdata->ln_assign);
> + regmap_update_bits(pdata->regmap, SN_ENH_FRAME_REG, LN_POLRS_MASK,
> + pdata->ln_polrs << LN_POLRS_OFFSET);
> +
> /* set dsi clk frequency value */
> ti_sn_bridge_set_dsi_rate(pdata);
>
> @@ -1063,6 +1066,55 @@ static int ti_sn_setup_gpio_controller(struct ti_sn_bridge *pdata)
> return ret;
> }
>
> +static void ti_sn_bridge_parse_lanes(struct ti_sn_bridge *pdata,
> + struct device_node *np)
> +{
> + u32 lane_assignments[SN_MAX_DP_LANES] = { 0, 1, 2, 3 };
> + u32 lane_polarities[SN_MAX_DP_LANES] = { };
> + struct device_node *endpoint;
> + u8 ln_assign = 0;
> + u8 ln_polrs = 0;
> + int dp_lanes;
> + int i;
> +
> + /*
> + * Read config from the device tree about lane remapping and lane
> + * polarities. These are optional and we assume identity map and
> + * normal polarity if nothing is specified. It's OK to specify just
> + * data-lanes but not lane-polarities but not vice versa.
> + *
> + * Error checking is light (we just make sure we don't crash or
> + * buffer overrun) and we assume dts is well formed and specifying
> + * mappings that the hardware supports.
> + */
> + endpoint = of_graph_get_endpoint_by_regs(np, 1, -1);
> + dp_lanes = of_property_count_u32_elems(endpoint, "data-lanes");
> + if (dp_lanes > 0 && dp_lanes <= SN_MAX_DP_LANES) {
> + of_property_read_u32_array(endpoint, "data-lanes",
> + lane_assignments, dp_lanes);
> + of_property_read_u32_array(endpoint, "lane-polarities",
> + lane_polarities, dp_lanes);
> + } else {
> + dp_lanes = SN_MAX_DP_LANES;
> + }
> + of_node_put(endpoint);
> +
> + /*
> + * Convert into register format. Loop over all lanes even if
> + * data-lanes had fewer elements so that we nicely initialize
> + * the LN_ASSIGN register.
> + */
> + for (i = SN_MAX_DP_LANES - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
> + ln_assign = ln_assign << LN_ASSIGN_WIDTH | lane_assignments[i];
> + ln_polrs = ln_polrs << 1 | lane_polarities[i];
> + }
> +
> + /* Stash in our struct for when we power on */
> + pdata->dp_lanes = dp_lanes;
> + pdata->ln_assign = ln_assign;
> + pdata->ln_polrs = ln_polrs;
> +}
> +
> static int ti_sn_bridge_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> const struct i2c_device_id *id)
> {
> @@ -1105,6 +1157,8 @@ static int ti_sn_bridge_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> return ret;
> }
>
> + ti_sn_bridge_parse_lanes(pdata, client->dev.of_node);
> +
> ret = ti_sn_bridge_parse_regulators(pdata);
> if (ret) {
> DRM_ERROR("failed to parse regulators\n");
> --
> 2.26.2.645.ge9eca65c58-goog
>
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists