Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] drm/ingenic: Attach bridge chain to encoders

[Paul Cercueil]

Le jeu., sept. 23 2021 at 20:52:23 +0200, H. Nikolaus Schaller 
<hns@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> Hi Paul,
>
> >  Am 23.09.2021 um 15:30 schrieb Paul Cercueil <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >
> >  Hi Nikolaus,
> >
> >  Le jeu., sept. 23 2021 at 13:41:28 +0200, H. Nikolaus Schaller 
> > <hns@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> > >  Hi Laurent,
> > >  Ah, ok.
> > >  But then we still have issues.
> > >  Firstly I would assume that get_edid only works properly if it is 
> > > initialized
> > >  through dw_hdmi_connector_create().
> > >  Next, in the current code, passing DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR 
> > > to
> > >  dw_hdmi_bridge_attach() indeed does not call 
> > > dw_hdmi_connector_create()
> > >  but returns 0.
> > >  This patch 6/6 makes drm/ingenic unconditionally require a 
> > > connector
> > >  to be attached which is defined somewhere else (device tree e.g. 
> > > "connector-hdmi")
> > >  unrelated to dw-hdmi. Current upstream code for drm/ingenic does 
> > > not init/attach
> > >  such a connector on its own so it did work before.
> > >  I.e. I think we can't just use parts of dw-hdmi.
> >
> >  The fact that Laurent is using dw-hdmi with 
> > DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR on Renesas makes me think that it's 
> > possible here as well. There's no reason why it shouldn't work with 
> > ingenic-drm.
>
> That is interesting and Laurent can probably comment on differences 
> between
> his setup (I wasn't able to deduce what device you are referring to) 
> and dw-hdmi.
>
> For jz4780 we tried that first. I do not remember the exact reasons 
> but we wasted
> weeks trying to but failed to get it working. While the dw-hdmi 
> connector simply works
> on top of upstream and fails only if we apply your patch.
>
> Another issue is how you want to tell connector-hdmi to use the extra 
> i2c bus driver
> for ddc which is not available directly as a standard i2c controller 
> of the jz4780.
>
> hdmi-connector.yaml defines:
>
>   ddc-i2c-bus:
> 	description: phandle link to the I2C controller used for DDC EDID 
> probing
> 	$ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle
>
> So we would need some ddc-i2c-bus = <&i2c-controller-inside-the 
> dw-hdmi>.
>
> But that i2c-controller-inside-the dw-hdmi does not exist in device 
> tree
> and can not be added unless someone significantly rewrites dw-hdmi to
> register and expose it as i2c controller.

No, you don't need to do that at all. Just don't set the "ddc-i2c-bus" 
property.

> >  The ingenic-drm driver does not need to create any connector. The 
> > "connector-hdmi" is connected to dw-hdmi as the "next bridge" in the 
> > list.
>
> Sure. It does not *create* a connector. It expects that it can safely 
> call
> drm_bridge_connector_init() to get a pointer to a newly created 
> connector.
>
> But if we use the dw-hdmi connector, there is no such connector and 
> "next bridge".

We don't want to use the dw-hdmi connector. Your "next bridge" is the 
"hdmi-connector" that should be wired in DTS.

> Or can you tell me how to make the dw-hdmi connector created by
> dw_hdmi_connector_create() become the "next bridge" in the list for 
> your driver?
> But without significantly rewriting dw-hdmi.c (and testing).

Wire it to the LCD node in DTS...

See how we do it for the IT66121 driver:
https://github.com/OpenDingux/linux/blob/jz-5.15/arch/mips/boot/dts/ingenic/rg350m.dts#L114-L134

> > >  If drm_bridge_attach() would return some errno if 
> > > DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR
> > >  is set, initialization in ingenic_drm_bind() would fail likewise 
> > > with "Unable to attach bridge".
> > >  So in any case dw-hdmi is broken by this drm/ingenic patch unless 
> > > someone
> > >  reworks it to make it compatible.
> >
> >  Where would the errno be returned? Why would drm_bridge_attach() 
> > return an error code?
>
> Currently dw_hdmi_bridge_attach() returns 0 if it is asked to support
> DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR.
>
> This is not treated as an error by drm_bridge_attach().
>
> Here it could return an error (-ENOTSUPP?) instead, to allow for 
> error handling
> by its caller.

And why would you do that? If you don't want to attach a connector, 
then drm_bridge_attach() doesn't need to do much. So it's normal that 
it returns zero.

> But that raises an error message like "failed to attach bridge to 
> encoder" and
> the bridge is reset and detached.
>
> > >  Another issue is that dw_hdmi_connector_create() does not only do 
> > > dcd/edid
> > >  but appears to detects hot plug and does some special 
> > > initialization.
> > >  So we probably loose hotplug detect if we just use 
> > > drm_bridge_funcs.get_edid().
> >
> >  There's drm_bridge_funcs.detect().
>
> You mean in dw-hdmi? Yes, it calls dw_hdmi_bridge_detect() which 
> calls dw_hdmi_detect().
> This does some read_hpd.
>
> Anyways, this does not solve the problem that with your drm/ingenic 
> proposal the
> dw-hdmi subsystem (hdmi + ddc) can no longer be initialized properly 
> unless someone
> fixes either.
>
> So IMHO this should be treated as a significant blocking point for 
> your patch
> because it breaks something that is working upstream and there seems 
> to be no
> rationale to change it.
>
> Your commit message just says:
> "All the bridges are now attached with 
> DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR."
> but gives no reason why.
>
> I fully understand that you want to change it and Laurent said that 
> it will become
> standard in the far future. Therefore I suggest to find a way that 
> you can find out
> if a connector has already been created by drm_bridge_attach() to 
> stay compatible
> with current upstream code.

No, absolutely not. There is nothing upstream yet that can bind the 
ingenic-drm driver with the dw-hdmi driver. This is your downstream 
patch. I'm not breaking anything that's upstream, so there is no 
blocking point.

Besides, even with your downstream patch I don't see any reason why the 
dw-hdmi driver wouldn't work with this patch, provided it's wired 
properly, and you never did show a proof of failure either. You come up 
with "possible points where it will fail" but these are based on your 
assumptions on how the drivers should be working together, and I think 
you somehow miss the whole picture.

Start by wiring things properly, like in my previously linked DTS, and 
*test*. If it fails, tell us where it fails. Because your "it doesn't 
work" arguments have zero weight otherwise.

If I can find some time this weekend I will test it myself.

Cheers,
-Paul

> I even want to help here but I don't know how to detect the inverse of
> drm_connector_attach_encoder(), i.e. 
> is_drm_encoder_attached_to_any_connector().
>
> BR and thanks,
> Nikolaus