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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 09:49:35 +0200 From: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com> To: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>, Nícolas F. R. A. Prado <nfraprado@...labora.com> Cc: kernel@...labora.com, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>, Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>, dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] drm/panel-edp: Add panel entry for R140NWF5 RH Il 20/07/22 00:40, Doug Anderson ha scritto: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 1:39 PM Nícolas F. R. A. Prado > <nfraprado@...labora.com> wrote: >> >> Add panel identification entry for the IVO R140NWF5 RH (product ID: >> 0x057d) panel. >> >> Signed-off-by: Nícolas F. R. A. Prado <nfraprado@...labora.com> >> >> --- >> The comments on the driver indicate that the T3 timing should be set on >> hpd_absent, while hpd_reliable would have a shorter time just while the >> HPD line stabilizes on low after power is supplied. > > Right. Ideally hpd_reliable is 0 unless you've got a badly-designed panel. > > >> But can we really assume that the HPD line will be reliable at all >> before the DDIC is done booting up, at which point the HPD line is >> brought up? IOW, shouldn't we always delay T3 (by setting hpd_reliable = >> T3), since only then we're really sure that the DDIC is done setting up >> and the HPD line is reliable? > > If the panel is hooked up properly, then the HPD pin should be pulled > low at the start and then should only go high after the panel is ready > for us to talk to it, right? So it's not like the DDIC has to boot up > and actively init the state. I would assume that the initial state of > the "HPD output" from the panel's IC would be one of the following: > * A floating input. > * A pulled down input. > * An output driven low. > > In any of those cases just adding a pull down on the line would be > enough to ensure that the HPD line is reliable until the panel comes > around and actively drives the line high. > > Remember, this is eDP and it's not something that's hot-plugged, so > there's no debouncing involved and in a properly designed system there > should be no time needed for the signal to stabilize. I would also > point out that on the oficial eDP docs the eDP timing diagram doesn't > show the initial state of "HPD" as "unknown". It shows it as low. > > Now, that all being said, I have seen at least one panel that glitched > itself at bootup. After you powered it on it would blip its HPD line > high before it had actually finished booting. Then the HPD would go > low again before finally going high after the panel finished booting. > This is the reason for "hpd_reliable". > > If you've got a board with a well-designed panel but the hookup > between the panel and the board is wrong (maybe the board is missing a > pulldown on the HPD line?) then you can just set the "no-hpd" property > for your board. That will tell the kernel to just always delay the > "hpd-absent" delay. > We were concerned exactly about glitchy HPD during DDIC init, as I didn't want to trust it because the only testing we could do was on just two units... ...but if you're sure that I was too much paranoid about that, that's good, as it means I will be a bit more "relaxed" on this topic next time :-) >> I've set the T3 delay to hpd_absent in this series, following what's >> instructed in the comments, but I'd like to discuss whether we shouldn't >> be setting T3 on hpd_reliable instead, for all panels, to be on the >> safer side. > > The way it's specified right now is more flexible, though, isn't it? > This way if you're on a board where the HPD truly _isn't_ stable then > you can just set the "no-hpd" and it will automatically use the > "hpd_absent" delay, right? > For Chromebooks, that's totally doable, thanks to the bootloader seeking for proper machine compatibles, so yes I agree with that. > >> drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-edp.c | 8 ++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-edp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-edp.c >> index 3626469c4cc2..675d793d925e 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-edp.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-edp.c >> @@ -1854,6 +1854,12 @@ static const struct panel_delay delay_100_500_e200 = { >> .enable = 200, >> }; >> >> +static const struct panel_delay delay_200_500_e200 = { >> + .hpd_absent = 200, >> + .unprepare = 500, >> + .enable = 200, >> +}; >> + >> #define EDP_PANEL_ENTRY(vend_chr_0, vend_chr_1, vend_chr_2, product_id, _delay, _name) \ >> { \ >> .name = _name, \ >> @@ -1882,6 +1888,8 @@ static const struct edp_panel_entry edp_panels[] = { >> >> EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('C', 'M', 'N', 0x114c, &innolux_n116bca_ea1.delay, "N116BCA-EA1"), >> >> + EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('I', 'V', 'O', 0x057d, &delay_200_500_e200, "R140NWF5 RH"), >> + > > This looks fine to me: > > Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> > > I'm happy to apply this in a day or two assuming you're OK with my > explanation above. Thank you for the long mail, your explanation was truly helpful! (especially for me being paranoid :-P) So, I agree to go with that one, for which: Reviewed-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com> Nic, green light? Cheers, (and thanks again!) Angelo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists