Message-ID: <20240925125856.321f7ef7@booty>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2024 12:58:56 +0200
From: Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@...tlin.com>
To: Simona Vetter <simona.vetter@...ll.ch>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
 Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Andrzej Hajda
 <andrzej.hajda@...el.com>, Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>,
 Robert Foss <rfoss@...nel.org>, Laurent Pinchart
 <Laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>, Jonas Karlman <jonas@...boo.se>,
 Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>, Maarten Lankhorst
 <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>, Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
 Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
 Derek Kiernan <derek.kiernan@....com>, Dragan Cvetic
 <dragan.cvetic@....com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Greg Kroah-Hartman
 <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>, Paul
 Kocialkowski <contact@...lk.fr>, Hervé Codina
 <herve.codina@...tlin.com>, Thomas Petazzoni
 <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, Paul
 Kocialkowski <paul.kocialkowski@...tlin.com>, Dmitry Baryshkov
 <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Add support for GE SUNH hot-pluggable connector
 (was: "drm: add support for hot-pluggable bridges")

Hello Simona,

[+Cc: Dmitry Baryshkov who took part to the LPC discussion]

On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 10:26:37 +0200
Simona Vetter <simona.vetter@...ll.ch> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 09, 2024 at 03:26:04PM +0200, Luca Ceresoli wrote:

...

> > There is a fundamental question where your position is not clear to me.
> > Based on this:
> >   
> > > - The last fixed bridges knows that all subsequent bridges are hotplugged.  
> >     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  
> > >   Which means instead of just asking for the next bridge, it needs to ask
> > >   for the fully formed bridge chain, including the connector.
> > >   
> > 
> > and this:
> >   
> > > - The hotplug bridge connector code checks every time a new bridge shows  
> >     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  
> > >   up whether the chain is now complete. Once that is the case, it creates
> > >   the connector (with the new bridge design this is no longer the job of
> > >   the last bridge in the chain, so we need to require that for
> > >   hotpluggable bridges). Then it can attach all the bridges to that
> > >   connector, and hand the entire fully formed chain to the last fixed
> > >   bridge to hotplug insert and register.  
> > 
> > The question is: do you think the hotplug-bridge driver should be
> > present, or not? To me the two above sentences appear to contradict each
> > other.
> > 
> > The reason we decided to implement a hotplug DRM bridge is it allows to
> > decouple the fixed and the remote segments of the pipeline, in such a
> > way that all the regular bridge drivers don't need any special handling
> > to support hotplug.
> > 
> > In my work the upstream bridge driver is samsung-dsim.c and the
> > downstream one is ti-sn65dsi83.c and none of them needed a single line
> > changed to support hotplug. I think this is useful: virtually any
> > physical bridge with pins can be used in a hotplug setup, either in the
> > fixed or in the removable section, so not needing to modify them is
> > valuable.
> > 
> > OTOH in various parts of this and other e-mails you seem to imply that
> > there should be no hotplug-bridge (not as a struct drm_bridge, not as
> > a driver, or both). Except for the fact that there is no chip
> > implementing such a bridge (there is a physical connector though) I do
> > not see many reasons.  
> 
> Yeah you can have a dummy hotplug-bridge driver which just represents the
> hotplug connector, I don't see an issue with that. And sounds like a
> reasonable idea if it helps modelling with DT and all that.
> 
> What I described above was just focused on the interaction between bridge
> drivers and the hotplug support code. I think you absolutely need the last
> bridge driver to be aware that the entire subsequent chain is hotplugged,
> otherwise it wont work. That last bridge driver can be a special
> hotplug driver, but it doesn't need to be the case.

I see, that clarifies your position, thanks.

...

> > > Yeah we need special functions, which the last fixed bridge needs to call
> > > instead of the current set of functions. So instead of of_drm_find_bridge
> > > we need something like of_drm_register_hotplug_source_bridge or similar.  
> > 
> > Continuing on the above topic, are you suggesting that there should be
> > no hotplug-bridge, and that every bridge that can be used as the "last
> > fixed bridge" should handle the hotplug case individually?
> > 
> > If that is the case, we'd need to modify any bridge driver that people
> > want to use as "last fixed bridge" to:
> > 
> >  1. know they are the "last fixed bridge" (via device tree?)
> >  2. use of_drm_register_hotplug_source_bridge()
> >     instead of of_drm_find_bridge() accordingly  
> 
> This depends upon the dt design. If the dt design has a separate distinct
> hotplug node, then we could bind a hotplug bridge against that, which is
> aware.
> 
> But I think for some case (maybe dsi nodes) the dt design would be more an
> attribute somewhere plus a link to the first hotplugged element. And in
> that case the last physical bridge driver needs to be aware of that - we
> simply don't have any dt node we can bind the hotplug bridge driver
> against. I think the generic bridge hotplug design should not make an
> assumption about how the dt is designed here and allow both.
> 
> Also if the dt design for the approach without a separate hotplug
> connector is standardized, we can have a of_drm_handle_next_bridge
> function which does the right thing for both cases automatically. I think
> that way the impact on existing bridge drivers is minimal.

Pushing this even more, instead of having bridges aware of being the
last fixed ones, I've been pondering on a structure where every bridge
assumes the next one could disappear, and works appropriately. So the
current case (all bridges are fixed) would be just a special case where
the next bridge is found initially and never disappears.

This would probably be cleaner, no [if (hotplug) {this} else {that}]
constructs, but I'm concerned about the transition path for old
poorly-maintained drivers.

...

> > > > > Instead I think that code should be directly in core bridge code (I don't
> > > > > see the benefit of having this entirely in a separate driver), using drm
> > > > > locking to make sure there's no races.    
> > > > 
> > > > Not sure I got what you mean here. Which one of the following?
> > > > 
> > > >  1. The entire hotplug-bridge driver should not exist, and the DRM
> > > >     core should handle it all (seems not doable, this driver has lots of
> > > >     device-specific details)
> > > >  2. The hotplug-driver should exist, but the code to attach/detach the
> > > >     pipeline on hotplug/unplug should be moved to the core, with the
> > > >     hotplug-driver providing callbacks for the device-specific aspects
> > > >  3. Same as 2, but additionally the hotplug-bridge should become a
> > > >     connector driver (hotplug-connector.c?) -- not sure it can decouple
> > > >     the two sides without a bridge however
> > > >  4. None of the above    
> > > 
> > > 3, roughly. The connector creation must be in core bridge code, or things
> > > will go boom.  
> > 
> > Based on this I think you mean:
> > 
> >  1. the hotplug-*something* driver should exist  
> 
> This part I'm not sure is required, see my comments above. I think it
> depends upon how the dt design ultimately will look like, and I don't have
> an input on that.
> 
> >  2. it should add the fixed connector (DSI in my case) on probe
> >  3. it should add/remove the removable connector (LVDS) on hot(un)plug  
> 
> The new bridge design is that bridges do _not_ create connectors
> themselves. Instead the driver does that, using the bridge code as helpers
> to make sure things work correctly.
> 
> But aside from that I think this sounds good. I'm not sure you need the
> connector from step 2, but it shouldn't hurt either. With dp mst we create
> that connector because dp can also be driven directly without mst, so
> there we need that connector to be able to do modesets from userspace.

I had a sort of assumption that the fixed connector is needed to even
populate the card, not sure I was correct. Surely from a high-level API
it would make sense to remove it.

I'll postpone this aspect to a later moment, and by that time questions
about the hotplug-bridge will have been clarified. Right now I'm going
to tackle the drm_bridge refcounting.

> >  4. it should add _no_ bridge (in the sense of struct drm_bridge)
> >     [not sure it can still decouple the fixed VS addon pipeline parts]  
> 
> Yeah that's the tricky part, but definitely those hotplugged bridges
> should not be part of the currently existing bridge chain, because that
> cannot cope with hotplugs.

Not sure what you mean here, and what you mean by "the currently
existing bridge chain".

Do you mean hot-plugged bridges, when present, should not be in the
global bridge_list? That would make sense, sure.

Best regards,
Luca

-- 
Luca Ceresoli, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

Powered by blists - more mailing lists