Re: [PATCH 0/4] drm/panel: sitronix-st7789v: add support for partial mode

[Maxime Ripard]

On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 02:34:58PM +0200, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> > > > > > I think I'll still like to have something clarified before we merge it:
> > > > > > if userspace forces a mode, does it contain the margins or not? I don't
> > > > > > have an opinion there, I just think it should be documented.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The mode comes with the margins, so if userspace does something really
> > > > > funny then either it gets garbage (as in, part of it's crtc area isn't
> > > > > visible, or maybe black bars on the screen), or the driver rejects it
> > > > > (which I think is the case for panels, they only take their mode and
> > > > > nothing else).
> > > > 
> > > > Panels can usually be quite flexible when it comes to the timings they
> > > > accept, and we could actually use that to our advantage, but even if we
> > > > assume that they have a single mode, I don't think we have anything that
> > > > enforces that, either at the framework or documentation levels?
> > > 
> > > Maybe more bugs? We've been slowly filling out all kinds of atomic kms
> > > validation bugs in core/helper code because as a rule of thumb,
> > > drivers get it wrong. Developers test until things work, then call it
> > > good enough, and very few driver teams make a serious effort in trying
> > > to really validate all invalid input. Because doing that is an
> > > enormous amount of work.
> > > 
> > > I think for clear-cut cases like drm_panel the fix is to just put more
> > > stricter validation into shared code (and then if we break something,
> > > figure out how we can be sufficiently lenient again).
> > 
> > Panels are kind of weird, since they essentially don't exist at all in
> > the framework so it's difficult to make it handle them or their state.
> > 
> > It's typically handled by encoders directly, so each and every driver
> > would need to make that check, and from a quick grep, none of them are
> > (for the reasons you said).
> > 
> > Just like for HDMI, even though we can commit to changing those facts,
> > it won't happen overnight, so to circle back to that series, I'd like a
> > comment in the driver when the partial mode is enabled that if userspace
> > ever pushes a mode different from the expected one, we'll add the margins.
> 
> To be fair, a majority of the panel drivers would do the wrong
> init of the controller with a different mode because:
> - mainly the controller model is unknown
> - when it's known the datasheet is missing
> - when the datasheet is here, most of the registers are missing
> - and most of the time the timings are buried in the init sequence
> 
> It's sad but it's the real situation.

Again, I agree. As far as I'm aware, none of them add arbitrary numbers
to timings though, so it's easy enough to figure out what the mode is
meant to be: it's the mode. Here, we add some numbers to the mode, so
the interaction with the userspace forcing a mode is less clear.

> Only a few drivers can handle a different mode, and we should perhaps
> add a flag when not set rejecting a different mode for those controllers and
> mark the few ones who can handle that...
> And this should be a first step before adding an atomic Panel API.

I'm really just asking for a comment in the code here.

Everything that you mentioned are improvements that we should have on
our todo list, but I don't see them as pre-requisite for this series and
we get to it later on.

Maxime

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature