Re: [PATCH] drm/panel-edp: Add BOE NE140QDM-NX2

[Doug Anderson]

Hi,

On Sat, Jul 25, 2026 at 5:11 AM Weiji Wang <nebclllo0444@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
>
> On 7/24/26 23:24, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > This is not sorted properly. 0x0af2 does not belong between 0x0b1e and 0x0b34.
> >
> > ...I could fix that when applying, but I also have a question: do you
> > have access to the datasheet of this panel, or are you just guessing
> > the right timing by looking at the nearby panels? I assume you have
> > this panel yourself for testing and confirm it seems to work OK.
>
>
> The datasheet is taken from Panelook. I have to mention that enable delay
> is not directly available in the datasheet, only (T4+T5+T6+T8)-min is
> given.
>
> I'm not really familiar with eDP panels, so I'm not sure if using
> 'prepare_to_enable' instead of 'enable' will break anything on devices
> without HPD enabled. However, appearently (T4+T5+T6+T8)-min is greater
> than (T6-min + max(T7-max, T8-min)), so I believe that setting 'enable'
> to (T4+T5+T6+T8)-min is conservative enough.
>
> Is it proper to switch to 'delay_200_500_p2e80' (use 'prepare_to_enable'
> instead)? If so, I would change it and also the panel entry sorting.

Right that using the "enable" delay is more conservative, but it does
sound as if "prepare_to_enable" is more correct in this case if you
are provided "(T4+T5+T6+T8)-min".

I re-looked at the one panel using "delay_200_500_p2e80"
(NV116WHM-T01), since I still have access to that datasheet. There, I
see:

T4+T5+T6+T8 > 80ms
0ms < T7 <= 50ms
50ms < T8

In other words, T7-max is 50 and T8-min is 50.

Based on that, I believe it would be more correct for this panel to
use "delay_200_500_e50_p2e80". I'll try to send a patch for that,
which would get rid of the need for "delay_200_500_p2e80".

Does that match your panel, too?

-Doug