Message-ID: <e8c395e4-23b7-b252-21a1-5f8f8c5c552a@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 3 Aug 2023 14:34:58 +0200
From:   Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>
To:     Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
Cc:     Michael Riesch <michael.riesch@...fvision.net>,
        Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
        Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>,
        Gerald Loacker <gerald.loacker@...fvision.net>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
        Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] drm/panel: sitronix-st7789v: add support for partial
 mode

On 03/08/2023 13:43, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 12:26:03PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 at 11:22, Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 10:51:57AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 10:48:57AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 10:11:22AM +0200, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 18/07/2023 17:31, Michael Riesch wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This series adds support for the partial display mode to the Sitronix
>>>>>>> ST7789V panel driver. This is useful for panels that are partially
>>>>>>> occluded by design, such as the Jasonic JT240MHQS-HWT-EK-E3. Support
>>>>>>> for this particular panel is added as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note: This series is already based on
>>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230714013756.1546769-1-sre@kernel.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I understand Maxime's arguments, but by looking closely at the code,
>>>>>> this doesn't look like an hack at all and uses capabilities of the
>>>>>> panel controller to expose a smaller area without depending on any
>>>>>> changes or hacks on the display controller side which is coherent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Following's Daniel's summary we cannot compare it to TV overscan
>>>>>> because overscan is only on *some* displays, we can still get 100%
>>>>>> of the picture from the signal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Still disagree on the fact that it only affects some display. But it's
>>>>> not really relevant for that series.
>>>>
>>>> See my 2nd point, from a quick grep aside from i915 hdmi support, no one
>>>> else sets all the required hdmi infoframes correctly. Which means on a
>>>> compliant hdmi tv, you _should_ get overscan. That's how that stuff is
>>>> speced.
>>>>
>>>> Iirc you need to at least set both the VIC and the content type, maybe
>>>> even more stuff.
>>>>
>>>> Unless all that stuff is set I'd say it's a kms driver bug if you get
>>>> overscan on a hdmi TV.
>>>
>>> I have no doubt that i915 works there. The source of my disagreement is
>>> that if all drivers but one don't do that, then userspace will have to
>>> care. You kind of said it yourself, i915 is kind of the exception there.
>>>
>>> The exception can be (and I'm sure it is) right, but still, it deviates
>>> from the norm.
>>
>> The right fix for these is sending the right infoframes, _not_ trying
>> to fiddle with overscan margins. Only the kernel can make sure the
>> right infoframes are sent out. If you try to paper over this in
>> userspace, you'll make the situation worse, not better (because
>> fiddling with overscan means you get scaling, and so rescaling
>> artifacts, and for hard contrasts along pixel lines that'll look like
>> crap).
>>
>> So yeah this is a case of "most upstream hdmi drivers are broken".
>> Please don't try to fix kernel bugs in userspace.
> 
> ACK.
> 
>>>>> I think I'll still like to have something clarified before we merge it:
>>>>> if userspace forces a mode, does it contain the margins or not? I don't
>>>>> have an opinion there, I just think it should be documented.
>>>>
>>>> The mode comes with the margins, so if userspace does something really
>>>> funny then either it gets garbage (as in, part of it's crtc area isn't
>>>> visible, or maybe black bars on the screen), or the driver rejects it
>>>> (which I think is the case for panels, they only take their mode and
>>>> nothing else).
>>>
>>> Panels can usually be quite flexible when it comes to the timings they
>>> accept, and we could actually use that to our advantage, but even if we
>>> assume that they have a single mode, I don't think we have anything that
>>> enforces that, either at the framework or documentation levels?
>>
>> Maybe more bugs? We've been slowly filling out all kinds of atomic kms
>> validation bugs in core/helper code because as a rule of thumb,
>> drivers get it wrong. Developers test until things work, then call it
>> good enough, and very few driver teams make a serious effort in trying
>> to really validate all invalid input. Because doing that is an
>> enormous amount of work.
>>
>> I think for clear-cut cases like drm_panel the fix is to just put more
>> stricter validation into shared code (and then if we break something,
>> figure out how we can be sufficiently lenient again).
> 
> Panels are kind of weird, since they essentially don't exist at all in
> the framework so it's difficult to make it handle them or their state.
> 
> It's typically handled by encoders directly, so each and every driver
> would need to make that check, and from a quick grep, none of them are
> (for the reasons you said).
> 
> Just like for HDMI, even though we can commit to changing those facts,
> it won't happen overnight, so to circle back to that series, I'd like a
> comment in the driver when the partial mode is enabled that if userspace
> ever pushes a mode different from the expected one, we'll add the margins.

To be fair, a majority of the panel drivers would do the wrong
init of the controller with a different mode because:
- mainly the controller model is unknown
- when it's known the datasheet is missing
- when the datasheet is here, most of the registers are missing
- and most of the time the timings are buried in the init sequence

It's sad but it's the real situation.

Only a few drivers can handle a different mode, and we should perhaps
add a flag when not set rejecting a different mode for those controllers and
mark the few ones who can handle that...
And this should be a first step before adding an atomic Panel API.

Neil

> 
> That way, if and when we come back to it, we'll know what the original
> intent and semantics were.
> 
> Maxime

Powered by blists - more mailing lists