Re: [PATCH v3 33/43] drm/panel: simple: Change mode for Sharp lq123p1jx31

[Doug Anderson]

Hi,

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 4:34 AM, Enric Balletbo Serra
<eballetbo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2018-01-31 17:52 GMT+01:00 Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 7:16 AM, Sean Paul <seanpaul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 7:54 AM, Lucas Stach <l.stach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Am Dienstag, den 30.01.2018, 21:29 +0100 schrieb Thierry Escande:
>>>>> From: Sean Paul <seanpaul@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>> Change the mode for Sharp lq123p1jx31 panel to something more
>>>>> rockchip-friendly such that we can use the fixed PLLs to
>>>>> generate the pixel clock
>>>>
>>>> This should really switch to a display timing instead of exposing a
>>>> single mode. The display timing has min, typical, max tuples for all
>>>> the timings values, which would allow the attached driver to vary the
>>>> timings inside the allowed bounds if it makes sense.
>>>>
>>>> Trying to hit a specific pixel clock to free up a PLL is exactly one of
>>>> the use cases envisioned for the display timings stuff.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed, I think we had this discussion the first time around. We
>>> should drop this patch.
>>>
>>> Thanks for catching this!
>>
>> Are you sure we should drop this?  In order for things to work
>> properly (not generate noise on the digitizer or other EMI), this
>> needs to run at a very specific pixel clock with very specific
>> blanking times.  I know that earlier we had slightly different
>> blanking times and Samsung came back and said that there was noise on
>> the digitizer.  I could be wrong, but I don't think there's any way
>> currently to be able to specify exactly what timings should be used on
>> a particular board.
>>
>> Don't get be wrong--I think a patch such as this one that claims a
>> single board's timings as the "right" ones for a generic panel is a
>> bit of a hack.  ...but at the same time there are no other users of
>> this panel (that I know of) in mainline and the timings presented here
>> are certainly sane timings for this panel.
>>
>> In any case, previous discussion at: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9614603/
>>
>>
>> ...oh, and looking at the previous discussion reminds me that the
>> timings presented in this here patch are actually not the right ones
>> (they have the right PLL, but the wrong blankings to avoid the noise
>> issues).  See <//chromium-review.googlesource.com/381015>
>>
>
> As Thierry no longer has the hardware to test these patch series, I'll
> take care of these and follow the upstreaming process. I think that
> doesn't make sense send a v4 version of all 43 patches for this
> change. Right now, only this patch received comments so I'll wait a
> bit more for if we can get the other patches reviewed. If the others
> are fine just and I don't need to send a new version just don't apply
> this one and I will send a second version of that specific patch. Or
> even better, is really trivial what needs to be changed, so maybe the
> maintainer can do it? ;)

Just as a heads up, Sean Paul has a series of patches to replace this
patch.  The following are IDs from patchwork.kernel.org:

10207583 New          [v3,1/6] dt-bindings: Clarify timing subnode use
as panel-timing
10207585 New          [v3,2/6] dt-bindings: Add headings to
simple-panel bindings
10207591 New          [v3,3/6] dt-bindings: Add panel-timing subnode
to simple-panel
10207593 New          [v3,4/6] drm/panel: simple: Add ability to
override typical timing
10207595 New          [v3,5/6] drm/panel: simple: Use display_timing
for lq123p1jx31
10207603 New          [v3,6/6] arm64: dts: rockchip: Specify override
mode for kevin panel

-Doug