Re: [PATCH v2 4/8] drm/rockchip/dsi: correct phy parameter setting

From: Matthias Kaehlcke
Date: Wed Sep 27 2017 - 13:56:07 EST

Next message: Ioana Radulescu: "[PATCH] staging: fsl-mc/dpio: Fix incorrect comparison"
Previous message: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk: "Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: VMX: Don't expose PLE enable if there is no hardware support"
In reply to: Nickey Yang: "[PATCH v2 4/8] drm/rockchip/dsi: correct phy parameter setting"
Next in thread: Nickey Yang: "[PATCH v2 5/8] drm/rockchip/dsi: Use DRM_DEV_ERROR instead of dev_err"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hi Nickey,

El Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 03:55:19PM +0800 Nickey Yang ha dit:

> As MIPI PHY document show, icpctrl<3..0> and lpfctrl<5..0>
> should depend on frequency,so fix it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nickey Yang <nickey.yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/dw-mipi-dsi.c | 98 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 70 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/dw-mipi-dsi.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/dw-mipi-dsi.c
> index 191037c..20d3f36 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/dw-mipi-dsi.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/dw-mipi-dsi.c
> @@ -267,10 +267,21 @@
> #define VCO_IN_CAP_CON_HIGH (0x2 << 1)
> #define REF_BIAS_CUR_SEL BIT(0)
>
> -#define CP_CURRENT_3MA BIT(3)
> +#define CP_CURRENT_1_5UA 0x1
> +#define CP_CURRENT_4_5UA 0x2
> +#define CP_CURRENT_7_5UA 0x6
> +#define CP_CURRENT_6UA 0x9
> +#define CP_CURRENT_12UA 0xb
> +#define CP_CURRENT_SEL(val) ((val) & 0xf)
> #define CP_PROGRAM_EN BIT(7)
> +
> +#define LPF_RESISTORS_15_5KOHM 0x1
> +#define LPF_RESISTORS_13KOHM 0x2
> +#define LPF_RESISTORS_11_5KOHM 0x4
> +#define LPF_RESISTORS_10_5KOHM 0x8
> +#define LPF_RESISTORS_8KOHM 0x10
> #define LPF_PROGRAM_EN BIT(6)
> -#define LPF_RESISTORS_20_KOHM 0
> +#define LPF_RESISTORS_SEL(val) ((val) & 0x3f)
>
> #define HSFREQRANGE_SEL(val) (((val) & 0x3f) << 1)
>
> @@ -400,32 +411,63 @@ enum dw_mipi_dsi_mode {
> DW_MIPI_DSI_VID_MODE,
> };
>
> -struct dphy_pll_testdin_map {
> +struct dphy_pll_parameter_map {
> unsigned int max_mbps;
> - u8 testdin;
> + u8 hsfreqrange;
> + u8 icpctrl;
> + u8 lpfctrl;
> };
>
> /* The table is based on 27MHz DPHY pll reference clock. */
> -static const struct dphy_pll_testdin_map dptdin_map[] = {
> - { 90, 0x00}, { 100, 0x10}, { 110, 0x20}, { 130, 0x01},
> - { 140, 0x11}, { 150, 0x21}, { 170, 0x02}, { 180, 0x12},
> - { 200, 0x22}, { 220, 0x03}, { 240, 0x13}, { 250, 0x23},
> - { 270, 0x04}, { 300, 0x14}, { 330, 0x05}, { 360, 0x15},
> - { 400, 0x25}, { 450, 0x06}, { 500, 0x16}, { 550, 0x07},
> - { 600, 0x17}, { 650, 0x08}, { 700, 0x18}, { 750, 0x09},
> - { 800, 0x19}, { 850, 0x29}, { 900, 0x39}, { 950, 0x0a},
> - {1000, 0x1a}, {1050, 0x2a}, {1100, 0x3a}, {1150, 0x0b},
> - {1200, 0x1b}, {1250, 0x2b}, {1300, 0x3b}, {1350, 0x0c},
> - {1400, 0x1c}, {1450, 0x2c}, {1500, 0x3c}
> +static const struct dphy_pll_parameter_map dppa_map[] = {
> + { 90, 0x00, CP_CURRENT_1_5UA, LPF_RESISTORS_13KOHM},

max_mbps in this table is off by one. According to the databook the
ranges for the date rate are:

80-89
90-99
...
1450-1500

I think most people would interpret 'max_mbps' as the highest value of
the range, not the first value outside of the range on the upper side.

The code below 'fixes' this by using '>' instead of '>=' when looking
up the configuration for a data rate:

if (dppa_map[i].max_mbps > max_mbps)
return i;

Both the table and this check are confusing, just use the actual max
value of the range and '>='.

Also the current code wouldn't work with a max rate of 1500 Mbps,
since (1500 > 1500) is false.

> + { 100, 0x10, CP_CURRENT_1_5UA, LPF_RESISTORS_13KOHM},
> + { 110, 0x20, CP_CURRENT_1_5UA, LPF_RESISTORS_13KOHM},
> + { 130, 0x01, CP_CURRENT_1_5UA, LPF_RESISTORS_15_5KOHM},
> + { 140, 0x11, CP_CURRENT_1_5UA, LPF_RESISTORS_15_5KOHM},
> + { 150, 0x21, CP_CURRENT_1_5UA, LPF_RESISTORS_15_5KOHM},
> + { 170, 0x02, CP_CURRENT_6UA, LPF_RESISTORS_13KOHM},
> + { 180, 0x12, CP_CURRENT_6UA, LPF_RESISTORS_13KOHM},
> + { 200, 0x22, CP_CURRENT_6UA, LPF_RESISTORS_13KOHM},
> + { 220, 0x03, CP_CURRENT_4_5UA, LPF_RESISTORS_13KOHM},
> + { 240, 0x13, CP_CURRENT_4_5UA, LPF_RESISTORS_13KOHM},
> + { 250, 0x23, CP_CURRENT_4_5UA, LPF_RESISTORS_13KOHM},
> + { 270, 0x04, CP_CURRENT_6UA, LPF_RESISTORS_11_5KOHM},
> + { 300, 0x14, CP_CURRENT_6UA, LPF_RESISTORS_11_5KOHM},
> + { 330, 0x05, CP_CURRENT_1_5UA, LPF_RESISTORS_15_5KOHM},
> + { 360, 0x15, CP_CURRENT_1_5UA, LPF_RESISTORS_15_5KOHM},
> + { 400, 0x25, CP_CURRENT_1_5UA, LPF_RESISTORS_15_5KOHM},
> + { 450, 0x06, CP_CURRENT_7_5UA, LPF_RESISTORS_11_5KOHM},
> + { 500, 0x16, CP_CURRENT_7_5UA, LPF_RESISTORS_11_5KOHM},
> + { 550, 0x07, CP_CURRENT_7_5UA, LPF_RESISTORS_10_5KOHM},
> + { 600, 0x17, CP_CURRENT_7_5UA, LPF_RESISTORS_10_5KOHM},
> + { 650, 0x08, CP_CURRENT_7_5UA, LPF_RESISTORS_11_5KOHM},
> + { 700, 0x18, CP_CURRENT_7_5UA, LPF_RESISTORS_11_5KOHM},
> + { 750, 0x09, CP_CURRENT_7_5UA, LPF_RESISTORS_11_5KOHM},
> + { 800, 0x19, CP_CURRENT_7_5UA, LPF_RESISTORS_11_5KOHM},
> + { 850, 0x29, CP_CURRENT_7_5UA, LPF_RESISTORS_11_5KOHM},
> + { 900, 0x39, CP_CURRENT_7_5UA, LPF_RESISTORS_11_5KOHM},
> + { 950, 0x0a, CP_CURRENT_12UA, LPF_RESISTORS_8KOHM},
> + {1000, 0x1a, CP_CURRENT_12UA, LPF_RESISTORS_8KOHM},
> + {1050, 0x2a, CP_CURRENT_12UA, LPF_RESISTORS_8KOHM},
> + {1100, 0x3a, CP_CURRENT_12UA, LPF_RESISTORS_8KOHM},
> + {1150, 0x0b, CP_CURRENT_12UA, LPF_RESISTORS_10_5KOHM},
> + {1200, 0x1b, CP_CURRENT_12UA, LPF_RESISTORS_10_5KOHM},
> + {1250, 0x2b, CP_CURRENT_12UA, LPF_RESISTORS_10_5KOHM},
> + {1300, 0x3b, CP_CURRENT_12UA, LPF_RESISTORS_10_5KOHM},
> + {1350, 0x0c, CP_CURRENT_12UA, LPF_RESISTORS_10_5KOHM},
> + {1400, 0x1c, CP_CURRENT_12UA, LPF_RESISTORS_10_5KOHM},
> + {1450, 0x2c, CP_CURRENT_12UA, LPF_RESISTORS_10_5KOHM},
> + {1500, 0x3c, CP_CURRENT_12UA, LPF_RESISTORS_10_5KOHM}
> };
>
> -static int max_mbps_to_testdin(unsigned int max_mbps)
> +static int max_mbps_to_parameter(unsigned int max_mbps)
> {
> int i;
>
> - for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(dptdin_map); i++)
> - if (dptdin_map[i].max_mbps > max_mbps)
> - return dptdin_map[i].testdin;
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(dppa_map); i++)
> + if (dppa_map[i].max_mbps > max_mbps)
> + return i;
>
> return -EINVAL;
> }
> @@ -507,16 +549,16 @@ static inline unsigned int ns2ui(struct dw_mipi_dsi *dsi, int ns)
>
> static int dw_mipi_dsi_phy_init(struct dw_mipi_dsi *dsi)
> {
> - int ret, testdin, vco, val;
> + int ret, i, vco, val;
>
> vco = (dsi->lane_mbps < 200) ? 0 : (dsi->lane_mbps + 100) / 200;
>
> - testdin = max_mbps_to_testdin(dsi->lane_mbps);
> - if (testdin < 0) {
> + i = max_mbps_to_parameter(dsi->lane_mbps);
> + if (i < 0) {
> dev_err(dsi->dev,
> - "failed to get testdin for %dmbps lane clock\n",
> + "failed to get parameter for %dmbps lane clock\n",
> dsi->lane_mbps);
> - return testdin;
> + return i;
> }
>
> /* Start by clearing PHY state */
> @@ -537,13 +579,13 @@ static int dw_mipi_dsi_phy_init(struct dw_mipi_dsi *dsi)
> REF_BIAS_CUR_SEL);
>
> dw_mipi_dsi_phy_write(dsi, PLL_CP_CONTROL_PLL_LOCK_BYPASS,
> - CP_CURRENT_3MA);
> + CP_CURRENT_SEL(dppa_map[i].icpctrl));
> dw_mipi_dsi_phy_write(dsi, PLL_LPF_AND_CP_CONTROL,
> CP_PROGRAM_EN | LPF_PROGRAM_EN |
> - LPF_RESISTORS_20_KOHM);
> + LPF_RESISTORS_SEL(dppa_map[i].lpfctrl));
>
> dw_mipi_dsi_phy_write(dsi, HS_RX_CONTROL_OF_LANE_0,
> - HSFREQRANGE_SEL(testdin));
> + HSFREQRANGE_SEL(dppa_map[i].hsfreqrange));
>
> dw_mipi_dsi_phy_write(dsi, PLL_INPUT_DIVIDER_RATIO,
> INPUT_DIVIDER(dsi->input_div));
> @@ -632,7 +674,7 @@ static int dw_mipi_dsi_get_lane_bps(struct dw_mipi_dsi *dsi,
> {
> unsigned long mpclk, tmp;
> unsigned int target_mbps = 1000;
> - unsigned int max_mbps = dptdin_map[ARRAY_SIZE(dptdin_map) - 1].max_mbps;
> + unsigned int max_mbps = dppa_map[ARRAY_SIZE(dppa_map) - 1].max_mbps;
> int bpp;
> unsigned long best_freq = 0;
> int lanes = dsi->lanes;

Reviewed-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Next message: Ioana Radulescu: "[PATCH] staging: fsl-mc/dpio: Fix incorrect comparison"
Previous message: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk: "Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: VMX: Don't expose PLE enable if there is no hardware support"
In reply to: Nickey Yang: "[PATCH v2 4/8] drm/rockchip/dsi: correct phy parameter setting"
Next in thread: Nickey Yang: "[PATCH v2 5/8] drm/rockchip/dsi: Use DRM_DEV_ERROR instead of dev_err"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]