Re: [PATCH] drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: Implement lane reordering + polarity

[Laurent Pinchart]

Hi Douglas,

Thank you for the patch.

On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 09:36:31PM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> The ti-sn65dsi86 MIPI DSI to eDP bridge chip supports arbitrary
> remapping of eDP lanes and also polarity inversion.  Both of these
> features have been described in the device tree bindings for the
> device since the beginning but were never implemented in the driver.
> Implement both of them.
> 
> Part of this change also allows you to (via the same device tree
> bindings) specify to use fewer than the max number of DP lanes that
> the panel reports.  This could be useful if your display supports more
> lanes but only a few are hooked up on your board.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> This patch is based upon my my outstanding series[1] not because there
> is any real requirement but simply to avoid merge conflicts.  I
> believe that my previous series is ready to land.  If, however, you'd
> prefer that I rebase this patch somewhere atop something else then
> please shout.
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200430194617.197510-1-dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
>  drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c | 75 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 62 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
> index 1a125423eb07..52cca54b525f 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
> @@ -50,8 +50,12 @@
>  #define SN_CHA_VERTICAL_BACK_PORCH_REG		0x36
>  #define SN_CHA_HORIZONTAL_FRONT_PORCH_REG	0x38
>  #define SN_CHA_VERTICAL_FRONT_PORCH_REG		0x3A
> +#define SN_LN_ASSIGN_REG			0x59
> +#define  LN_ASSIGN_WIDTH			2
>  #define SN_ENH_FRAME_REG			0x5A
>  #define  VSTREAM_ENABLE				BIT(3)
> +#define  LN_POLRS_OFFSET			4
> +#define  LN_POLRS_MASK				0xf0
>  #define SN_DATA_FORMAT_REG			0x5B
>  #define  BPP_18_RGB				BIT(0)
>  #define SN_HPD_DISABLE_REG			0x5C
> @@ -98,6 +102,7 @@
>  
>  #define SN_REGULATOR_SUPPLY_NUM		4
>  
> +#define SN_MAX_DP_LANES			4
>  #define SN_NUM_GPIOS			4
>  
>  /**
> @@ -115,6 +120,8 @@
>   * @enable_gpio:  The GPIO we toggle to enable the bridge.
>   * @supplies:     Data for bulk enabling/disabling our regulators.
>   * @dp_lanes:     Count of dp_lanes we're using.
> + * @ln_assign:    Value to program to the LN_ASSIGN register.
> + * @ln_polr:      Value for the 4-bit LN_POLRS field of SN_ENH_FRAME_REG.
>   *
>   * @gchip:        If we expose our GPIOs, this is used.
>   * @gchip_output: A cache of whether we've set GPIOs to output.  This
> @@ -140,6 +147,8 @@ struct ti_sn_bridge {
>  	struct gpio_desc		*enable_gpio;
>  	struct regulator_bulk_data	supplies[SN_REGULATOR_SUPPLY_NUM];
>  	int				dp_lanes;
> +	u8				ln_assign;
> +	u8				ln_polrs;
>  
>  	struct gpio_chip		gchip;
>  	DECLARE_BITMAP(gchip_output, SN_NUM_GPIOS);
> @@ -707,26 +716,20 @@ static void ti_sn_bridge_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge)
>  	int dp_rate_idx;
>  	unsigned int val;
>  	int ret = -EINVAL;
> +	int max_dp_lanes;
>  
> -	/*
> -	 * Run with the maximum number of lanes that the DP sink supports.
> -	 *
> -	 * Depending use cases, we might want to revisit this later because:
> -	 * - It's plausible that someone may have run fewer lines to the
> -	 *   sink than the sink actually supports, assuming that the lines
> -	 *   will just be driven at a higher rate.
> -	 * - The DP spec seems to indicate that it's more important to minimize
> -	 *   the number of lanes than the link rate.
> -	 *
> -	 * If we do revisit, it would be important to measure the power impact.
> -	 */
> -	pdata->dp_lanes = ti_sn_get_max_lanes(pdata);
> +	max_dp_lanes = ti_sn_get_max_lanes(pdata);
> +	pdata->dp_lanes = min(pdata->dp_lanes, max_dp_lanes);
>  
>  	/* DSI_A lane config */
>  	val = CHA_DSI_LANES(4 - pdata->dsi->lanes);
>  	regmap_update_bits(pdata->regmap, SN_DSI_LANES_REG,
>  			   CHA_DSI_LANES_MASK, val);
>  
> +	regmap_write(pdata->regmap, SN_LN_ASSIGN_REG, pdata->ln_assign);
> +	regmap_update_bits(pdata->regmap, SN_ENH_FRAME_REG, LN_POLRS_MASK,
> +			   pdata->ln_polrs << LN_POLRS_OFFSET);
> +
>  	/* set dsi clk frequency value */
>  	ti_sn_bridge_set_dsi_rate(pdata);
>  
> @@ -1063,6 +1066,50 @@ static int ti_sn_setup_gpio_controller(struct ti_sn_bridge *pdata)
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  
> +static void ti_sn_bridge_parse_lanes(struct ti_sn_bridge *pdata,
> +				     struct device_node *np)
> +{
> +	u32 lane_assignments[SN_MAX_DP_LANES] = { 0, 1, 2, 3 };
> +	u32 lane_polarities[SN_MAX_DP_LANES] = { };
> +	struct device_node *endpoint;
> +	u8 ln_assign = 0;
> +	u8 ln_polrs = 0;
> +	int dp_lanes;
> +	int i;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Read config from the device tree about lane remapping and lane
> +	 * polarities.  These are optional and we assume identity map and
> +	 * normal polarity if nothing is specified.  It's OK to specify just
> +	 * data-lanes but not lane-polarities but not vice versa.
> +	 */
> +	endpoint = of_graph_get_endpoint_by_regs(np, 1, -1);

Shouldn't you check for endpoint == NULL and fail probe if it is ?

> +	dp_lanes = of_property_count_u32_elems(endpoint, "data-lanes");
> +	if (dp_lanes > 0) {
> +		of_property_read_u32_array(endpoint, "data-lanes",
> +					   lane_assignments, dp_lanes);
> +		of_property_read_u32_array(endpoint, "lane-polarities",
> +					   lane_polarities, dp_lanes);

Similarly, with a buggy DT, you may have a buffer overrun here. I would
first check that dp_lanes <= SN_MAX_DP_LANES and error out otherwise.

> +	} else {
> +		dp_lanes = SN_MAX_DP_LANES;
> +	}
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Convert into register format.  Loop over all lanes even if
> +	 * data-lanes had fewer elements so that we nicely initialize
> +	 * the LN_ASSIGN register.
> +	 */
> +	for (i = SN_MAX_DP_LANES - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
> +		ln_assign = ln_assign << LN_ASSIGN_WIDTH | lane_assignments[i];
> +		ln_polrs = ln_polrs << 1 | lane_polarities[i];
> +	}

The datasheet documents the lane remapping register as allowing pretty
much any combination, but "Table 12. Logical to Physical Supported
Combinations" only documents a subset (for instance data-lanes = <2 3>
isn't allowed in that table). Should we guard against invalid
configurations ?

> +
> +	/* Stash in our struct for when we power on */
> +	pdata->dp_lanes = dp_lanes;
> +	pdata->ln_assign = ln_assign;
> +	pdata->ln_polrs = ln_polrs;
> +}
> +
>  static int ti_sn_bridge_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>  			      const struct i2c_device_id *id)
>  {
> @@ -1105,6 +1152,8 @@ static int ti_sn_bridge_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>  		return ret;
>  	}
>  
> +	ti_sn_bridge_parse_lanes(pdata, client->dev.of_node);
> +
>  	ret = ti_sn_bridge_parse_regulators(pdata);
>  	if (ret) {
>  		DRM_ERROR("failed to parse regulators\n");
> 

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart