[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cc638e20-aa7c-7014-f70b-1bb68e629d87@samsung.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2021 16:09:38 +0200
From: "a.hajda" <a.hajda@...sung.com>
To: Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech>, Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Laurent Pinchart <Laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>,
Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>,
Jonas Karlman <jonas@...boo.se>,
Robert Foss <robert.foss@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] drm/bridge: Make panel and bridge probe order
consistent
Hi Maxime,
I have been busy with other tasks, and I did not follow the list last
time, so sorry for my late response.
On 28.07.2021 15:32, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We've encountered an issue with the RaspberryPi DSI panel that prevented the
> whole display driver from probing.
>
> The issue is described in detail in the commit 7213246a803f ("drm/vc4: dsi:
> Only register our component once a DSI device is attached"), but the basic idea
> is that since the panel is probed through i2c, there's no synchronization
> between its probe and the registration of the MIPI-DSI host it's attached to.
>
> We initially moved the component framework registration to the MIPI-DSI Host
> attach hook to make sure we register our component only when we have a DSI
> device attached to our MIPI-DSI host, and then use lookup our DSI device in our
> bind hook.
>
> However, all the DSI bridges controlled through i2c are only registering their
> associated DSI device in their bridge attach hook, meaning with our change
I guess this is incorrect. I have promoted several times the pattern
that device driver shouldn't expose its interfaces (for example
component_add, drm_panel_add, drm_bridge_add) until it gathers all
required dependencies. In this particular case bridges should defer
probe until DSI bus becomes available. I guess this way the patch you
reverts would work.
I advised few times this pattern in case of DSI hosts, apparently I
didn't notice the similar issue can appear in case of bridges. Or there
is something I have missed???
Anyway there are already eleven(?) bridge drivers using this pattern. I
wonder if fixing it would be difficult, or if it expose other issues???
The patches should be quite straightforward - move
of_find_mipi_dsi_host_by_node and mipi_dsi_device_register_full to probe
time.
Finally I think that if we will not fix these bridge drivers we will
encounter another set of issues with new platforms connecting "DSI host
drivers assuming this pattern" and "i2c/dsi device drivers assuming
pattern already present in the bridges".
Regards
Andrzej
Powered by blists - more mailing lists