Re: [PATCH 06/15] drm/sun4i: tcon: Add support for tcon-top

From: Maxime Ripard
Date: Mon Jun 04 2018 - 07:50:53 EST

On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 09:19:43AM -0700, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 8:29 AM, Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 07:54:08PM +0200, Jernej Åkrabec wrote:
> >> Dne Äetrtek, 31. maj 2018 ob 11:21:33 CEST je Maxime Ripard napisal(a):
> >> > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 03:01:09PM -0700, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> >> > > >> > > + if (tcon->quirks->needs_tcon_top) {
> >> > > >> > > + struct device_node *np;
> >> > > >> > > +
> >> > > >> > > + np = of_parse_phandle(dev->of_node, "allwinner,tcon-top",
> >> > > >> > > 0);
> >> > > >> > > + if (np) {
> >> > > >> > > + struct platform_device *pdev;
> >> > > >> > > +
> >> > > >> > > + pdev = of_find_device_by_node(np);
> >> > > >> > > + if (pdev)
> >> > > >> > > + tcon->tcon_top =
> >> > > >> > > platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> >> > > >> > > + of_node_put(np);
> >> > > >> > > +
> >> > > >> > > + if (!tcon->tcon_top)
> >> > > >> > > + return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> >> > > >> > > + }
> >> > > >> > > + }
> >> > > >> > > +
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > I might have missed it, but I've not seen the bindings additions for
> >> > > >> > that property. This shouldn't really be done that way anyway, instead
> >> > > >> > of using a direct phandle, you should be using the of-graph, with the
> >> > > >> > TCON-top sitting where it belongs in the flow of data.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Just to answer to the first question, it did describe it in "[PATCH
> >> > > >> 07/15] dt- bindings: display: sun4i-drm: Add R40 HDMI pipeline".
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> As why I designed it that way - HW representation could be described
> >> > > >> that way> >>
> >> > > >> (ASCII art makes sense when fixed width font is used to view it):
> >> > > >> / LCD0/LVDS0
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> / TCON-LCD0
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> | \ MIPI DSI
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> mixer0 |
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> \ / TCON-LCD1 - LCD1/LVDS1
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> TCON-TOP
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> / \ TCON-TV0 - TVE0/RGB
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> mixer1 | \
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> | TCON-TOP - HDMI
> >> > > >> |
> >> > > >> | /
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> \ TCON-TV1 - TVE1/RGB
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> This is a bit simplified, since there is also TVE-TOP, which is
> >> > > >> responsible
> >> > > >> for sharing 4 DACs between both TVE encoders. You can have two TV outs
> >> > > >> (PAL/ NTSC) or TVE0 as TV out and TVE1 as RGB or vice versa. It even
> >> > > >> seems that you can arbitrarly choose which DAC is responsible for
> >> > > >> which signal, so there is a ton of possible end combinations, but I'm
> >> > > >> not 100% sure.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Even though I wrote TCON-TOP twice, this is same unit in HW. R40 manual
> >> > > >> suggest more possibilities, although some of them seem wrong, like RGB
> >> > > >> feeding from LCD TCON. That is confirmed to be wrong when checking BSP
> >> > > >> code.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Additionally, TCON-TOP comes in the middle of TVE0 and LCD0, TVE1 and
> >> > > >> LCD1 for pin muxing, although I'm not sure why is that needed at all,
> >> > > >> since according to R40 datasheet, TVE0 and TVE1 pins are dedicated and
> >> > > >> not on PORT D and PORT H, respectively, as TCON-TOP documentation
> >> > > >> suggest. However, HSYNC and PSYNC lines might be shared between TVE
> >> > > >> (when it works in RGB mode) and LCD. But that is just my guess since
> >> > > >> I'm not really familiar with RGB and LCD interfaces.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> I'm really not sure what would be the best representation in OF-graph.
> >> > > >> Can you suggest one?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Rob might disagree on this one, but I don't see anything wrong with
> >> > > > having loops in the graph. If the TCON-TOP can be both the input and
> >> > > > output of the TCONs, then so be it, and have it described that way in
> >> > > > the graph.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > The code is already able to filter out nodes that have already been
> >> > > > added to the list of devices we need to wait for in the component
> >> > > > framework, so that should work as well.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > And we'd need to describe TVE-TOP as well, even though we don't have a
> >> > > > driver for it yet. That will simplify the backward compatibility later
> >> > > > on.
> >> > >
> >> > > I'm getting the feeling that TCON-TOP / TVE-TOP is the glue layer that
> >> > > binds everything together, and provides signal routing, kind of like
> >> > > DE-TOP on A64. So the signal mux controls that were originally found
> >> > > in TCON0 and TVE0 were moved out.
> >> > >
> >> > > The driver needs to know about that, but the graph about doesn't make
> >> > > much sense directly. Without looking at the manual, I understand it to
> >> > > likely be one mux between the mixers and TCONs, and one between the
> >> > > TCON-TVs and HDMI. Would it make more sense to just have the graph
> >> > > connections between the muxed components, and remove TCON-TOP from
> >> > > it, like we had in the past? A phandle could be used to reference
> >> > > the TCON-TOP for mux controls, in addition to the clocks and resets.
> >> > >
> >> > > For TVE, we would need something to represent each of the output pins,
> >> > > so the device tree can actually describe what kind of signal, be it
> >> > > each component of RGB/YUV or composite video, is wanted on each pin,
> >> > > if any. This is also needed on the A20 for the Cubietruck, so we can
> >> > > describe which pins are tied to the VGA connector, and which one does
> >> > > R, G, or B.
> >> >
> >> > I guess we'll see how the DT maintainers feel about this, but my
> >> > impression is that the OF graph should model the flow of data between
> >> > the devices. If there's a mux somewhere, then the data is definitely
> >> > going through it, and as such it should be part of the graph.
> >>
> >> I concur, but I spent few days thinking how to represent this sanely in graph,
> >> but I didn't find any good solution. I'll represent here my idea and please
> >> tell your opinion before I start implementing it.
> >>
> >> First, let me be clear that mixer0 and mixer1 don't have same capabilities
> >> (different number of planes, mixer0 supports writeback, mixer1 does not,
> >> etc.). Thus, it does matter which mixer is connected to which TCON/encoder.
> >> mixer0 is meant to be connected to main display and mixer1 to auxiliary. That
> >> obviously depends on end system.
> >>
> >> So, TCON TOP has 3 muxes, which have to be represented in graph. Two of them
> >> are for mixer/TCON relationship (each of them 1 input and 4 possible outputs)
> >> and one for TV TCON/HDMI pair selection (2 possible inputs, 1 output).
> >>
> >> According to current practice in sun4i-drm driver, graph has to have port 0,
> >> representing input and port 1, representing output. This would mean that graph
> >> looks something like that:
> >>
> >> tcon_top: tcon-top@1c70000 {
> >> compatible = "allwinner,sun8i-r40-tcon-top";
> >> ...
> >> ports {
> >> #address-cells = <1>;
> >> #size-cells = <0>;
> >>
> >> tcon_top_in: port@0 {
> >> #address-cells = <1>;
> >> #size-cells = <0>;
> >> reg = <0>;
> >>
> >> tcon_top_in_mixer0: endpoint@0 {
> >> reg = <0>;
> >> remote-endpoint = <&mixer0_out_tcon_top>;
> >> };
> >>
> >> tcon_top_in_mixer1: endpoint@1 {
> >> reg = <1>;
> >> remote-endpoint = <&mixer1_out_tcon_top>;
> >> };
> >>
> >> tcon_top_in_tcon_tv: endpoint@2 {
> >> reg = <2>;
> >> // here is HDMI input connection, part of board DTS
> >> remote-endpoint = <board specific phandle to TV TCON output>;
> >> };
> >> };
> >>
> >> tcon_top_out: port@1 {
> >> #address-cells = <1>;
> >> #size-cells = <0>;
> >> reg = <1>;
> >>
> >> tcon_top_out_tcon0: endpoint@0 {
> >> reg = <0>;
> >> // here is mixer0 output connection, part of board DTS
> >> remote-endpoint = <board specific phandle to TCON>;
> >> };
> >>
> >> tcon_top_out_tcon1: endpoint@1 {
> >> reg = <1>;
> >> // here is mixer1 output connection, part of board DTS
> >> remote-endpoint = <board specific phandle to TCON>;
> >> };
> >>
> >> tcon_top_out_hdmi: endpoint@2 {
> >> reg = <2>;
> >> remote-endpoint = <&hdmi_in_tcon_top>;
> >> };
> >> };
> >> };
> >> };
> >
> > IIRC, each port is supposed to be one route for the data, so we would
> > have multiple ports, one for the mixers in input and for the tcon in
> > output, and one for the TCON in input and for the HDMI/TV in
> > output. Rob might correct me here.
> >
> >> tcon_tv0: lcd-controller@1c73000 {
> >> compatible = "allwinner,sun8i-r40-tcon-tv-0";
> >> ...
> >> ports {
> >> #address-cells = <1>;
> >> #size-cells = <0>;
> >>
> >> tcon_tv0_in: port@0 {
> >> reg = <0>;
> >>
> >> tcon_tv0_in_tcon_top: endpoint {
> >> // endpoint depends on board, part of board DTS
> >> remote-endpoint = <phandle to one of tcon_top_out_tcon>;
> >
> > Just curious, what would be there?
> >
> >> };
> >> };
> >>
> >> tcon_tv0_out: port@1 {
> >> #address-cells = <1>;
> >> #size-cells = <0>;
> >> reg = <1>;
> >>
> >> // endpoints to TV TOP and TCON TOP HDMI input
> >> ...
> >> };
> >> };
> >> };
> >>
> >> tcon_tv1: lcd-controller@1c74000 {
> >> compatible = "allwinner,sun8i-r40-tcon-tv-1";
> >> ...
> >> ports {
> >> #address-cells = <1>;
> >> #size-cells = <0>;
> >>
> >> tcon_tv1_in: port@0 {
> >> reg = <0>;
> >>
> >> tcon_tv1_in_tcon_top: endpoint {
> >> // endpoint depends on board, part of board DTS
> >> remote-endpoint = <phandle to one of tcon_top_out_tcon>;
> >> };
> >> };
> >>
> >> tcon_tv1_out: port@1 {
> >> #address-cells = <1>;
> >> #size-cells = <0>;
> >> reg = <1>;
> >>
> >> // endpoints to TV TOP and TCON TOP HDMI input
> >> ...
> >> };
> >> };
> >> };
> >>
> >> tcon_lcd0 and tcon_lcd1 would have similar connections, except that for
> >> outputs would be LCD or LVDS panels or MIPI DSI encoder.
> >>
> >> Please note that each TCON (there are 4 of them) would need to have unique
> >> compatible and have HW index stored in quirks data. It would be used by TCON
> >> TOP driver for configuring muxes.
> >
> > Can't we use the port/endpoint ID instead? If the mux is the only
> > thing that changes, the compatible has no reason to. It's the same IP,
> > and the only thing that changes is something that is not part of that
> > IP.
>
> I agree. Endpoint IDs should provide that information. I'm still not
> sure How to encode multiple in/out mux groups in a device node though.

I guess we can do that through different ports?

Maxime

--
Maxime Ripard, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature