[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <adf5f80a-17e5-1163-a93c-2759ae57d77d@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2022 10:43:59 +0300
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To: Kuogee Hsieh <quic_khsieh@...cinc.com>,
Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc: robdclark@...il.com, sean@...rly.run, swboyd@...omium.org,
vkoul@...nel.org, daniel@...ll.ch, airlied@...ux.ie,
agross@...nel.org, quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com,
quic_sbillaka@...cinc.com, freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/msm/dp: remove limitation of link rate at 5.4G to
support HBR3
On 10/11/2022 02:47, Kuogee Hsieh wrote:
>
> On 11/2/2022 11:04 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>> On 02/11/2022 20:28, Doug Anderson wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 10:23 AM Dmitry Baryshkov
>>> <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 1. Someone figures out how to model this with the bridge chain and
>>>>> then we only allow HBR3 if we detect we've got a TCPC that supports
>>>>> it. This seems like the cleanest / best but feels like a long pole.
>>>>> Not only have we been trying to get the TCPC-modeled-as-a-bridge stuff
>>>>> landed for a long time but even when we do it we still don't have a
>>>>> solution for how to communicate the number of lanes and other stuff
>>>>> between the TCPC and the DP controller so we have to enrich the bridge
>>>>> interface.
>>>>
>>>> I think we'd need some OOB interface. For example for DSI interfaces we
>>>> have mipi_dsi_device struct to communicate such OOB data.
>>>>
>>>> Also take a note regarding data-lanes from my previous email.
>>>
>>> Right, we can somehow communicate the max link rate through the bridge
>>> chain to the DP controller in an OOB manner that would work.
>>
>> I'd note that our dp_panel has some notion of such OOB data. So do AUX
>> drivers including the panel-edp. My suggestion would be to consider
>> both of them while modelling the OOB data.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> 2. We add in a DT property to the display controller node that says
>>>>> the max link rate for use on this board. This feels like a hack, but
>>>>> maybe it's not too bad. Certainly it would be incredibly simple to
>>>>> implement. Actually... ...one could argue that even if we later model
>>>>> the TCPC as a bridge that this property would still be valid / useful!
>>>>> You could certainly imagine that the SoC supports HBR3 and the TCPC
>>>>> supports HBR3 but that the board routing between the SoC and the TCPC
>>>>> is bad and only supports HBR2. In this case the only way out is
>>>>> essentially a "board constraint" AKA a DT property in the DP
>>>>> controller.
>>>>
>>>> We have been discussing similar topics with Abhinav. Krzysztof
>>>> suggested
>>>> using link-frequencies property to provide max and min values.
>
> questions,
>
> 1)is Krzysztof suggested had been implemented?
I can not parse this question, please excuse me.
Yes, Krzysztof suggested this being implemented as a link property, see
media/video-interfaces.txt.
Moreover your implementation goes against both the existing definition
(array with the list of frequencies) and Krzysztof's suggested extension
(min and max). Listing just a single frequency goes against both these
suggestions. In case of DP we have a fixed set of frequencies. Thus I'd
suggest listing all supported frequencies instead.
> 2) where is link property i can add link-frequencies?
link node. Create outbound graph node, add link-frequencies there. Also
as you are touching this part, please move the data-lanes property too.
>
>
>>>
>>> This sounds good to me and seems worth doing even if we eventually do
>>> #1.
>>
>> And the bonus point is that it can be done easily.
>>
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists