Re: [PATCH 4/6] dt-bindings: display: armada: Add display subsystem binding

[Russell King - ARM Linux admin]

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 09:45:22PM +0100, Lubomir Rintel wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-01-21 at 17:53 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux admin
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 10:07:11AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 9:46 AM Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@xxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2019-01-21 at 09:35 -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 11:26 AM Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@xxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > The Marvell Armada DRM master device is a virtual device needed to list all
> > > > > > nodes that comprise the graphics subsystem.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@xxxxx>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >  .../display/armada/marvell-armada-drm.txt     | 24 +++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > >  1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/armada/marvell-armada-drm.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/armada/marvell-armada-drm.txt
> > > > > > index de4cca9432c8..3dbfa8047f0b 100644
> > > > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/armada/marvell-armada-drm.txt
> > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/armada/marvell-armada-drm.txt
> > > > > > @@ -1,3 +1,27 @@
> > > > > > +Marvell Armada DRM master device
> > > > > > +================================
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +The Marvell Armada DRM master device is a virtual device needed to list all
> > > > > > +nodes that comprise the graphics subsystem.
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +Required properties:
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + - compatible: value should be "marvell,dove-display-subsystem",
> > > > > > +   "marvell,armada-display-subsystem"
> > > > > > + - ports: a list of phandles pointing to display interface ports of CRTC
> > > > > > +   devices
> > > > > > + - memory-region: phandle to a node describing memory to be used for the
> > > > > > +   framebuffer
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +Example:
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +       display-subsystem {
> > > > > > +               compatible = "marvell,dove-display-subsystem",
> > > > > > +                            "marvell,armada-display-subsystem";
> > > > > > +               memory-region = <&display_reserved>;
> > > > > > +               ports = <&lcd0_port>;
> > > > > 
> > > > > If there is only one device, you don't need this virtual node.
> > > > 
> > > > By "one device" you mean one LCD controller (CRTC)?
> > > 
> > > Yes.
> > 
> > How does that work (as far as the Linux implementation) ?  I can't see
> > a way that could work, while allowing the flexibility that Armada DRM
> > allows (two completely independent LCD controllers as two separate DRM
> > devices vs one DRM device containing both LCD controllers.)
> > 
> > > > I suppose in the (single CRTC) example case, the display-subsystem node
> > > > used to associate it with the memory region reserved for allocating the
> > > > frame buffers from. Could that be done differently?
> > > 
> > > Move memory-region to the LCD controller node.
> > 
> > That doesn't work - it would appear in the wrong part of the driver.
> > 
> > > > Also, if the node is indeed made optional, then it's going to
> > > > complicate things on the DRM side. Currently the driver that binds to
> > > > the node creates the DRM device once it sees all the components
> > > > connected to the ports appear. If we loose it, then the LCD controller
> > > > driver would somehow need to find out that it's alone and create the
> > > > DRM device itself.
> > > 
> > > DT is not the only way to create devices. The DRM driver can bind to
> > > the LCDC node and then create a child CRTC device (or even multiple
> > > ones for h/w with multiple pipelines).
> > 
> > That seems completely upside down and rediculous to me - are you
> > really suggesting that we should have some kind of virtual device
> > in DT, and omit the _real_ physical devices for that, having the
> > driver create the device with all the appropriate SoC resources?
> 
> Hmm, that's not how I read that. My understanding (putting aside
> practicality of the solution) is that Rob was merely suggesting that
> for the single LCDC case there would be just a single LCDC node in DT
> and the driver that binds to it would create the DRM device & CRTC
> device pair.

How would we know that was the case when the driver binds to the CRTC
node?  There is no back-link from the CRTC to the display-subsystem
when there's a display-subsystem node present, so there's no way for
the CRTC driver to know whether it should create the DRM device or
not.

I just can't see how this works at a technical level.

> > > You'll also notice that there are only 3 cases of this virtual node in
> > > the tree: STi, i.MX IPU, and Rockchip. That's because we've deprecated
> > > doing these virtual nodes for some time now. IOW, there are several
> > > examples of how to do this without a virtual node.
> > 
> > This driver has been in-tree with this setup for some time, although
> > the documentation has been missing (we actually have a _lot_ of
> > instances of that.)  However, we have no in-tree DT using it.
> > 
> > I don't really see how to satisfy your comments without totally
> > restructuring the driver, which is going to be quite a big chunk
> > of work.  I'm not sure I have the motivation to do that right now.
> 
> Note that the initial objection was against the display-subsystem node
> being mandatory if "there is only one [LCDC] device".
> 
> My understanding is that need to include the display-subsystem node for
> the multiple LCDC setup (on Dove platform) anyways. Is that correct?
> 
> Rob, I'm wondering if there would be a possibility of finding some
> middle groud? Perhaps documenting, that the display-subsystem node
> would ideally be optional for single LCDC setups, but indicating that
> the Armada DRM driver actually requires is?
> 
> Note that this is not a new driver -- it has been around since 2013,
> though, without useful DT bindings. Maybe it would do just well in
> company of the other three drivers you mentioned that use similar
> bindings.
> 
> (Also, there seem to have substantial discussion regarding the bindings
> design back in '13, shedding some light into why the display-subsystem
> node was deemed useful: [1])
> 
> [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg40358.html
> 
> Thanks,
> Lubo
> 
> 

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up