Message ID | 1381951616-12548-13-git-send-email-seanpaul@chromium.org (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New, archived |
Headers | show |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:27 AM > To: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; inki.dae@samsung.com > Cc: airlied@linux.ie; tomasz.figa@gmail.com; marcheu@chromium.org; Sean > Paul > Subject: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split manager/display/subdrv > > This patch splits display and manager from subdrv. The result is that > crtc functions can directly call into manager callbacks and encoder > functions can directly call into display callbacks. This will allow > us to remove the exynos_drm_hdmi shim and support mixer/hdmi & fimd/dp > with common code. > > Signed-off-by: Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> > --- > > Changes in v2: > - Pass display into display_ops instead of context Sorry but it seems like more reasonable to pass device object into display_ops and manager_ops. I'm not sure but display_ops could be implemented in other framework based driver such as CDF based lcd panel driver. So if you pass display - it's specific to exynos drm framework - into display_ops, the other framework based driver should include specific exynos drm header. And another one, the patch 6 passes manager object to manager_ops, and for this, you made the manager object to be set to driver data; platform_set_drvdata(pdev, &manager). That isn't reasonable. Generally, driver_data would point to device driver's context object. Thanks, Inki Dae
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] >> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:27 AM >> To: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; inki.dae@samsung.com >> Cc: airlied@linux.ie; tomasz.figa@gmail.com; marcheu@chromium.org; Sean >> Paul >> Subject: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split manager/display/subdrv >> >> This patch splits display and manager from subdrv. The result is that >> crtc functions can directly call into manager callbacks and encoder >> functions can directly call into display callbacks. This will allow >> us to remove the exynos_drm_hdmi shim and support mixer/hdmi & fimd/dp >> with common code. >> >> Signed-off-by: Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> >> --- >> >> Changes in v2: >> - Pass display into display_ops instead of context > > Sorry but it seems like more reasonable to pass device object into > display_ops and manager_ops. > So you've changed your mind from when you said the following? >>> manager->ops->xxx(manager, ...); >>> display->ops->xxx(display, ...); >>> >>> Agree. It would have been nice if you had changed your mind *before* I reworked everything. At any rate, I think it's still the right thing to do. > I'm not sure but display_ops could be implemented in other framework based > driver such as CDF based lcd panel driver. So if you pass display - it's > specific to exynos drm framework - into display_ops, the other framework > based driver should include specific exynos drm header. > AFAIK, CDF will not land in its current separate-from-drm form, we don't need to worry about this. Furthermore, these ops should just go away and become drm_crtc/drm_encoder/drm_connector funcs anyways. > And another one, the patch 6 passes manager object to manager_ops, and for > this, you made the manager object to be set to driver data; > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, &manager). That isn't reasonable. Generally, > driver_data would point to device driver's context object. > I'm not sure why this isn't reasonable, but it's a moot point. The driver data is only used up until we get rid of the pm ops, it needn't be set at all once things go through dpms. Sean > Thanks, > Inki Dae >
> -----Original Message----- > From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 11:37 PM > To: Inki Dae > Cc: dri-devel; Dave Airlie; Tomasz Figa; Stéphane Marchesin > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split manager/display/subdrv > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] > >> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:27 AM > >> To: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; inki.dae@samsung.com > >> Cc: airlied@linux.ie; tomasz.figa@gmail.com; marcheu@chromium.org; Sean > >> Paul > >> Subject: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split manager/display/subdrv > >> > >> This patch splits display and manager from subdrv. The result is that > >> crtc functions can directly call into manager callbacks and encoder > >> functions can directly call into display callbacks. This will allow > >> us to remove the exynos_drm_hdmi shim and support mixer/hdmi & fimd/dp > >> with common code. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> > >> --- > >> > >> Changes in v2: > >> - Pass display into display_ops instead of context > > > > Sorry but it seems like more reasonable to pass device object into > > display_ops and manager_ops. > > > > > So you've changed your mind from when you said the following? > > >>> manager->ops->xxx(manager, ...); > >>> display->ops->xxx(display, ...); > >>> > >>> Agree. > True. Before that, My comment was to pass device object into display_ops and manager_ops, and then you said the good solution is to pass manager and display to each driver. At that time, I thought no matter how the callback is called if the framework doesn't call callbacks of each driver with ctx. So I agreed. > It would have been nice if you had changed your mind *before* I > reworked everything. At any rate, I think it's still the right thing > to do. Really sorry about that. And I will add new patch for it so you don't need to concern about that. > > > > I'm not sure but display_ops could be implemented in other framework > based > > driver such as CDF based lcd panel driver. So if you pass display - it's > > specific to exynos drm framework - into display_ops, the other framework > > based driver should include specific exynos drm header. > > > > AFAIK, CDF will not land in its current separate-from-drm form, we > don't need to worry about this. Furthermore, these ops should just go > away and become drm_crtc/drm_encoder/drm_connector funcs anyways. > Can you assure the display_ops never implemented in other framework based driver, not CDF? At any rate, I think all possibilities should be opened. > > > And another one, the patch 6 passes manager object to manager_ops, and > for > > this, you made the manager object to be set to driver data; > > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, &manager). That isn't reasonable. Generally, > > driver_data would point to device driver's context object. > > > > I'm not sure why this isn't reasonable, but it's a moot point. The > driver data is only used up until we get rid of the pm ops, it needn't > be set at all once things go through dpms. > Generally, device drivers can call its own internal functions, and they will call that functions with ctx. However, if you set manager to driver_data then that functions should be called with manager object and also internally that functions should get ctx from the manager object. What is the purpose of manager? Do you think it's reasonable? Anyway, I'd like to say really sorry about inconvenient again. So I will fix it. Thanks, Inki Dae > Sean > > > > Thanks, > > Inki Dae > >
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] >> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 11:37 PM >> To: Inki Dae >> Cc: dri-devel; Dave Airlie; Tomasz Figa; Stéphane Marchesin >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split manager/display/subdrv >> >> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] >> >> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:27 AM >> >> To: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; inki.dae@samsung.com >> >> Cc: airlied@linux.ie; tomasz.figa@gmail.com; marcheu@chromium.org; Sean >> >> Paul >> >> Subject: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split manager/display/subdrv >> >> >> >> This patch splits display and manager from subdrv. The result is that >> >> crtc functions can directly call into manager callbacks and encoder >> >> functions can directly call into display callbacks. This will allow >> >> us to remove the exynos_drm_hdmi shim and support mixer/hdmi & fimd/dp >> >> with common code. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> >> >> --- >> >> >> >> Changes in v2: >> >> - Pass display into display_ops instead of context >> > >> > Sorry but it seems like more reasonable to pass device object into >> > display_ops and manager_ops. >> > >> >> >> So you've changed your mind from when you said the following? >> >> >>> manager->ops->xxx(manager, ...); >> >>> display->ops->xxx(display, ...); >> >>> >> >>> Agree. >> > > > True. Before that, My comment was to pass device object into display_ops and > manager_ops, and then you said the good solution is to pass manager and > display to each driver. At that time, I thought no matter how the callback > is called if the framework doesn't call callbacks of each driver with ctx. > So I agreed. > > >> It would have been nice if you had changed your mind *before* I >> reworked everything. At any rate, I think it's still the right thing >> to do. > > Really sorry about that. And I will add new patch for it so you don't need > to concern about that. > >> >> >> > I'm not sure but display_ops could be implemented in other framework >> based >> > driver such as CDF based lcd panel driver. So if you pass display - it's >> > specific to exynos drm framework - into display_ops, the other framework >> > based driver should include specific exynos drm header. >> > >> >> AFAIK, CDF will not land in its current separate-from-drm form, we >> don't need to worry about this. Furthermore, these ops should just go >> away and become drm_crtc/drm_encoder/drm_connector funcs anyways. >> > > Can you assure the display_ops never implemented in other framework based > driver, not CDF? At any rate, I think all possibilities should be opened. > I don't think we should let an RFC framework make the code more complicated for unclear benefit. By removing manager/display entirely, we can get rid of a *lot* of other code that is basically just plumbing drm hooks (exynos_drm_connector is a good example). >> >> > And another one, the patch 6 passes manager object to manager_ops, and >> for >> > this, you made the manager object to be set to driver data; >> > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, &manager). That isn't reasonable. Generally, >> > driver_data would point to device driver's context object. >> > >> >> I'm not sure why this isn't reasonable, but it's a moot point. The >> driver data is only used up until we get rid of the pm ops, it needn't >> be set at all once things go through dpms. >> > > Generally, device drivers can call its own internal functions, and they will > call that functions with ctx. However, if you set manager to driver_data > then that functions should be called with manager object and also internally > that functions should get ctx from the manager object. What is the purpose > of manager? Do you think it's reasonable? > So, to avoid setting the manager as the drvdata, we could implement something like fimd_dpms_ctx(ctx, mode) that takes ctx and the manager callback calls it fimd_dpms(mgr, mode) { ctx = mgr->ctx; fimd_dpms_ctx(ctx, mode); }. Alternatively, you can save a pointer to mgr in ctx, but that creates a circular link between the two. IMO, both of those solutions suck :) I'd much rather just set drvdata to the manager and call the hook directly. Like I said earlier, this is just a temporary step since we remove these pm ops later in the patch series. Sean > Anyway, I'd like to say really sorry about inconvenient again. So I will fix > it. > > Thanks, > Inki Dae > >> Sean >> >> >> > Thanks, >> > Inki Dae >> > >
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] >>> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 11:37 PM >>> To: Inki Dae >>> Cc: dri-devel; Dave Airlie; Tomasz Figa; Stéphane Marchesin >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split manager/display/subdrv >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> >> -----Original Message----- >>> >> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] >>> >> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:27 AM >>> >> To: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; inki.dae@samsung.com >>> >> Cc: airlied@linux.ie; tomasz.figa@gmail.com; marcheu@chromium.org; Sean >>> >> Paul >>> >> Subject: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split manager/display/subdrv >>> >> >>> >> This patch splits display and manager from subdrv. The result is that >>> >> crtc functions can directly call into manager callbacks and encoder >>> >> functions can directly call into display callbacks. This will allow >>> >> us to remove the exynos_drm_hdmi shim and support mixer/hdmi & fimd/dp >>> >> with common code. >>> >> >>> >> Signed-off-by: Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> >>> >> --- >>> >> >>> >> Changes in v2: >>> >> - Pass display into display_ops instead of context >>> > >>> > Sorry but it seems like more reasonable to pass device object into >>> > display_ops and manager_ops. >>> > >>> >>> >>> So you've changed your mind from when you said the following? >>> >>> >>> manager->ops->xxx(manager, ...); >>> >>> display->ops->xxx(display, ...); >>> >>> >>> >>> Agree. >>> >> >> >> True. Before that, My comment was to pass device object into display_ops and >> manager_ops, and then you said the good solution is to pass manager and >> display to each driver. At that time, I thought no matter how the callback >> is called if the framework doesn't call callbacks of each driver with ctx. >> So I agreed. >> >> >>> It would have been nice if you had changed your mind *before* I >>> reworked everything. At any rate, I think it's still the right thing >>> to do. >> >> Really sorry about that. And I will add new patch for it so you don't need >> to concern about that. >> >>> >>> >>> > I'm not sure but display_ops could be implemented in other framework >>> based >>> > driver such as CDF based lcd panel driver. So if you pass display - it's >>> > specific to exynos drm framework - into display_ops, the other framework >>> > based driver should include specific exynos drm header. >>> > >>> >>> AFAIK, CDF will not land in its current separate-from-drm form, we >>> don't need to worry about this. Furthermore, these ops should just go >>> away and become drm_crtc/drm_encoder/drm_connector funcs anyways. >>> >> >> Can you assure the display_ops never implemented in other framework based >> driver, not CDF? At any rate, I think all possibilities should be opened. >> > > I don't think we should let an RFC framework make the code more > complicated for unclear benefit. By removing manager/display entirely, > we can get rid of a *lot* of other code that is basically just > plumbing drm hooks (exynos_drm_connector is a good example). > I hacked this up today to prove it out. Check out the top 5 commits in https://github.com/crseanpaul/exynos-drm-next/commits/linux-next-exynos-staging. It removes exynos_drm_connector in favor of just implementing drm_connector directly. This same treatment should be done for exynos_drm_encoder and exynos_drm_crtc, but I didn't get around to doing this. As you can see, it cuts out a lot of code and removes an entire abstraction layer. Much nicer :) Sean >>> >>> > And another one, the patch 6 passes manager object to manager_ops, and >>> for >>> > this, you made the manager object to be set to driver data; >>> > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, &manager). That isn't reasonable. Generally, >>> > driver_data would point to device driver's context object. >>> > >>> >>> I'm not sure why this isn't reasonable, but it's a moot point. The >>> driver data is only used up until we get rid of the pm ops, it needn't >>> be set at all once things go through dpms. >>> >> >> Generally, device drivers can call its own internal functions, and they will >> call that functions with ctx. However, if you set manager to driver_data >> then that functions should be called with manager object and also internally >> that functions should get ctx from the manager object. What is the purpose >> of manager? Do you think it's reasonable? >> > > So, to avoid setting the manager as the drvdata, we could implement > something like fimd_dpms_ctx(ctx, mode) that takes ctx and the manager > callback calls it fimd_dpms(mgr, mode) { ctx = mgr->ctx; > fimd_dpms_ctx(ctx, mode); }. Alternatively, you can save a pointer to > mgr in ctx, but that creates a circular link between the two. IMO, > both of those solutions suck :) > > I'd much rather just set drvdata to the manager and call the hook > directly. Like I said earlier, this is just a temporary step since we > remove these pm ops later in the patch series. > > Sean > > >> Anyway, I'd like to say really sorry about inconvenient again. So I will fix >> it. >> >> Thanks, >> Inki Dae >> >>> Sean >>> >>> >>> > Thanks, >>> > Inki Dae >>> > >>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] > Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 11:47 PM > To: Inki Dae > Cc: dri-devel; Dave Airlie; Tomasz Figa; Stéphane Marchesin > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split manager/display/subdrv > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] > >> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 11:37 PM > >> To: Inki Dae > >> Cc: dri-devel; Dave Airlie; Tomasz Figa; Stéphane Marchesin > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split manager/display/subdrv > >> > >> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] > >> >> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:27 AM > >> >> To: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; inki.dae@samsung.com > >> >> Cc: airlied@linux.ie; tomasz.figa@gmail.com; marcheu@chromium.org; > Sean > >> >> Paul > >> >> Subject: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split manager/display/subdrv > >> >> > >> >> This patch splits display and manager from subdrv. The result is > that > >> >> crtc functions can directly call into manager callbacks and encoder > >> >> functions can directly call into display callbacks. This will allow > >> >> us to remove the exynos_drm_hdmi shim and support mixer/hdmi & > fimd/dp > >> >> with common code. > >> >> > >> >> Signed-off-by: Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> > >> >> --- > >> >> > >> >> Changes in v2: > >> >> - Pass display into display_ops instead of context > >> > > >> > Sorry but it seems like more reasonable to pass device object into > >> > display_ops and manager_ops. > >> > > >> > >> > >> So you've changed your mind from when you said the following? > >> > >> >>> manager->ops->xxx(manager, ...); > >> >>> display->ops->xxx(display, ...); > >> >>> > >> >>> Agree. > >> > > > > > > True. Before that, My comment was to pass device object into display_ops > and > > manager_ops, and then you said the good solution is to pass manager and > > display to each driver. At that time, I thought no matter how the > callback > > is called if the framework doesn't call callbacks of each driver with > ctx. > > So I agreed. > > > > > >> It would have been nice if you had changed your mind *before* I > >> reworked everything. At any rate, I think it's still the right thing > >> to do. > > > > Really sorry about that. And I will add new patch for it so you don't > need > > to concern about that. > > > >> > >> > >> > I'm not sure but display_ops could be implemented in other framework > >> based > >> > driver such as CDF based lcd panel driver. So if you pass display - > it's > >> > specific to exynos drm framework - into display_ops, the other > framework > >> > based driver should include specific exynos drm header. > >> > > >> > >> AFAIK, CDF will not land in its current separate-from-drm form, we > >> don't need to worry about this. Furthermore, these ops should just go > >> away and become drm_crtc/drm_encoder/drm_connector funcs anyways. > >> > > > > Can you assure the display_ops never implemented in other framework > based > > driver, not CDF? At any rate, I think all possibilities should be opened. > > > > I don't think we should let an RFC framework make the code more > complicated for unclear benefit. By removing manager/display entirely, > we can get rid of a *lot* of other code that is basically just > plumbing drm hooks (exynos_drm_connector is a good example). > > >> > >> > And another one, the patch 6 passes manager object to manager_ops, > and > >> for > >> > this, you made the manager object to be set to driver data; > >> > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, &manager). That isn't reasonable. > Generally, > >> > driver_data would point to device driver's context object. > >> > > >> > >> I'm not sure why this isn't reasonable, but it's a moot point. The > >> driver data is only used up until we get rid of the pm ops, it needn't > >> be set at all once things go through dpms. > >> > > > > Generally, device drivers can call its own internal functions, and they > will > > call that functions with ctx. However, if you set manager to driver_data > > then that functions should be called with manager object and also > internally > > that functions should get ctx from the manager object. What is the > purpose > > of manager? Do you think it's reasonable? > > > > So, to avoid setting the manager as the drvdata, we could implement > something like fimd_dpms_ctx(ctx, mode) that takes ctx and the manager > callback calls it fimd_dpms(mgr, mode) { ctx = mgr->ctx; It's still better for manager to have device objet, mgr->dev, and each device driver gets its own context of device object. By doing so, each device driver would have no any dependency of framework. Just leave it as the device driver's role to get its own context object. > fimd_dpms_ctx(ctx, mode); }. Alternatively, you can save a pointer to > mgr in ctx, but that creates a circular link between the two. IMO, The device drivers don't really need to know the manager object. So context doesn't need to have manager. What is the purpose of manager? The purpose would be for that Exynos framework calls sub driver's callbacks. > both of those solutions suck :) > > I'd much rather just set drvdata to the manager and call the hook > directly. Like I said earlier, this is just a temporary step since we > remove these pm ops later in the patch series. > > Sean > > > > Anyway, I'd like to say really sorry about inconvenient again. So I will > fix > > it. > > > > Thanks, > > Inki Dae > > > >> Sean > >> > >> > >> > Thanks, > >> > Inki Dae > >> > > >
> -----Original Message----- > From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] > Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 6:18 AM > To: Inki Dae > Cc: dri-devel; Dave Airlie; Tomasz Figa; Stéphane Marchesin > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split manager/display/subdrv > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] > >>> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 11:37 PM > >>> To: Inki Dae > >>> Cc: dri-devel; Dave Airlie; Tomasz Figa; Stéphane Marchesin > >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split manager/display/subdrv > >>> > >>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > > >>> >> -----Original Message----- > >>> >> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] > >>> >> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:27 AM > >>> >> To: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; inki.dae@samsung.com > >>> >> Cc: airlied@linux.ie; tomasz.figa@gmail.com; marcheu@chromium.org; > Sean > >>> >> Paul > >>> >> Subject: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split manager/display/subdrv > >>> >> > >>> >> This patch splits display and manager from subdrv. The result is > that > >>> >> crtc functions can directly call into manager callbacks and encoder > >>> >> functions can directly call into display callbacks. This will allow > >>> >> us to remove the exynos_drm_hdmi shim and support mixer/hdmi & > fimd/dp > >>> >> with common code. > >>> >> > >>> >> Signed-off-by: Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> > >>> >> --- > >>> >> > >>> >> Changes in v2: > >>> >> - Pass display into display_ops instead of context > >>> > > >>> > Sorry but it seems like more reasonable to pass device object into > >>> > display_ops and manager_ops. > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> So you've changed your mind from when you said the following? > >>> > >>> >>> manager->ops->xxx(manager, ...); > >>> >>> display->ops->xxx(display, ...); > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Agree. > >>> > >> > >> > >> True. Before that, My comment was to pass device object into > display_ops and > >> manager_ops, and then you said the good solution is to pass manager and > >> display to each driver. At that time, I thought no matter how the > callback > >> is called if the framework doesn't call callbacks of each driver with > ctx. > >> So I agreed. > >> > >> > >>> It would have been nice if you had changed your mind *before* I > >>> reworked everything. At any rate, I think it's still the right thing > >>> to do. > >> > >> Really sorry about that. And I will add new patch for it so you don't > need > >> to concern about that. > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > I'm not sure but display_ops could be implemented in other framework > >>> based > >>> > driver such as CDF based lcd panel driver. So if you pass display - > it's > >>> > specific to exynos drm framework - into display_ops, the other > framework > >>> > based driver should include specific exynos drm header. > >>> > > >>> > >>> AFAIK, CDF will not land in its current separate-from-drm form, we > >>> don't need to worry about this. Furthermore, these ops should just go > >>> away and become drm_crtc/drm_encoder/drm_connector funcs anyways. > >>> > >> > >> Can you assure the display_ops never implemented in other framework > based > >> driver, not CDF? At any rate, I think all possibilities should be > opened. > >> > > > > I don't think we should let an RFC framework make the code more > > complicated for unclear benefit. By removing manager/display entirely, > > we can get rid of a *lot* of other code that is basically just > > plumbing drm hooks (exynos_drm_connector is a good example). > > > > I hacked this up today to prove it out. Check out the top 5 commits in > https://github.com/crseanpaul/exynos-drm-next/commits/linux-next-exynos- > staging. > It removes exynos_drm_connector in favor of just implementing > drm_connector directly. This same treatment should be done for > exynos_drm_encoder and exynos_drm_crtc, but I didn't get around to > doing this. > > As you can see, it cuts out a lot of code and removes an entire > abstraction layer. Much nicer :) > It seems that you implements connector in each device driver. Can't they be combined as common spot, exynos_connector, again to avoid codes from duplicated? :) The abstraction layer you mentioned also means a common spot. Another one, you patch also makes each sub driver have strongly dependency of drm framework. So how we can support existing backlight and lcd class based lcd panel drivers if the connector is implemented in each device driver later? the drm header files should be included in drivers/video/backlight/xxx_lcd.c? And, I will introduce a new framework to support existing lcd panel drivers and display bus drivers soon; as of now for Exynos drm, and the framework is being tested internally. With this framework, encoder and connector will be created when lcd panel or display bus driver such as eDP is probed: it doesn?t really need to create encoder and connector in advance if lcd panel or display bus driver isn't probed yet. Regardless of crtc, and encoder and connector creation order, when last one is created, crtc and connector will be connected each other. And exynos_drm_display could be implemented in other frameworks if we have common structure for display device driver. And also the framework will support lvds driver according to Linux device driver model. Thanks, Inki Dae > Sean > > >>> > >>> > And another one, the patch 6 passes manager object to manager_ops, > and > >>> for > >>> > this, you made the manager object to be set to driver data; > >>> > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, &manager). That isn't reasonable. > Generally, > >>> > driver_data would point to device driver's context object. > >>> > > >>> > >>> I'm not sure why this isn't reasonable, but it's a moot point. The > >>> driver data is only used up until we get rid of the pm ops, it needn't > >>> be set at all once things go through dpms. > >>> > >> > >> Generally, device drivers can call its own internal functions, and they > will > >> call that functions with ctx. However, if you set manager to > driver_data > >> then that functions should be called with manager object and also > internally > >> that functions should get ctx from the manager object. What is the > purpose > >> of manager? Do you think it's reasonable? > >> > > > > So, to avoid setting the manager as the drvdata, we could implement > > something like fimd_dpms_ctx(ctx, mode) that takes ctx and the manager > > callback calls it fimd_dpms(mgr, mode) { ctx = mgr->ctx; > > fimd_dpms_ctx(ctx, mode); }. Alternatively, you can save a pointer to > > mgr in ctx, but that creates a circular link between the two. IMO, > > both of those solutions suck :) > > > > I'd much rather just set drvdata to the manager and call the hook > > directly. Like I said earlier, this is just a temporary step since we > > remove these pm ops later in the patch series. > > > > Sean > > > > > >> Anyway, I'd like to say really sorry about inconvenient again. So I > will fix > >> it. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Inki Dae > >> > >>> Sean > >>> > >>> > >>> > Thanks, > >>> > Inki Dae > >>> > > >>
2013/10/17 Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>: > This patch splits display and manager from subdrv. The result is that > crtc functions can directly call into manager callbacks and encoder > functions can directly call into display callbacks. This will allow > us to remove the exynos_drm_hdmi shim and support mixer/hdmi & fimd/dp > with common code. > > Signed-off-by: Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> > --- > > Changes in v2: > - Pass display into display_ops instead of context > > drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_connector.c | 50 ++- > drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_core.c | 181 ++++++++--- > drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_crtc.c | 115 +++++-- > drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_crtc.h | 20 +- > drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_drv.c | 29 +- > drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_drv.h | 106 +++--- > drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_encoder.c | 258 ++------------- > drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_encoder.h | 18 +- > drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_fb.c | 4 +- > drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_fimd.c | 161 +++++---- > drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_hdmi.c | 449 -------------------------- Build error. it seems that you missed vidi module. Can you consider vidi module also? Thanks, Inki Dae > drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_hdmi.h | 2 + > drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_plane.c | 15 +- > 13 files changed, 466 insertions(+), 942 deletions(-) > delete mode 100644 drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_hdmi.c >
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] >> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 6:18 AM >> To: Inki Dae >> Cc: dri-devel; Dave Airlie; Tomasz Figa; Stéphane Marchesin >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split manager/display/subdrv >> >> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> wrote: >> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] >> >>> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 11:37 PM >> >>> To: Inki Dae >> >>> Cc: dri-devel; Dave Airlie; Tomasz Figa; Stéphane Marchesin >> >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split manager/display/subdrv >> >>> >> >>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> > wrote: >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> >> -----Original Message----- >> >>> >> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] >> >>> >> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:27 AM >> >>> >> To: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; inki.dae@samsung.com >> >>> >> Cc: airlied@linux.ie; tomasz.figa@gmail.com; marcheu@chromium.org; >> Sean >> >>> >> Paul >> >>> >> Subject: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split manager/display/subdrv >> >>> >> >> >>> >> This patch splits display and manager from subdrv. The result is >> that >> >>> >> crtc functions can directly call into manager callbacks and encoder >> >>> >> functions can directly call into display callbacks. This will allow >> >>> >> us to remove the exynos_drm_hdmi shim and support mixer/hdmi & >> fimd/dp >> >>> >> with common code. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Signed-off-by: Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> >> >>> >> --- >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Changes in v2: >> >>> >> - Pass display into display_ops instead of context >> >>> > >> >>> > Sorry but it seems like more reasonable to pass device object into >> >>> > display_ops and manager_ops. >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> So you've changed your mind from when you said the following? >> >>> >> >>> >>> manager->ops->xxx(manager, ...); >> >>> >>> display->ops->xxx(display, ...); >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> Agree. >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> True. Before that, My comment was to pass device object into >> display_ops and >> >> manager_ops, and then you said the good solution is to pass manager and >> >> display to each driver. At that time, I thought no matter how the >> callback >> >> is called if the framework doesn't call callbacks of each driver with >> ctx. >> >> So I agreed. >> >> >> >> >> >>> It would have been nice if you had changed your mind *before* I >> >>> reworked everything. At any rate, I think it's still the right thing >> >>> to do. >> >> >> >> Really sorry about that. And I will add new patch for it so you don't >> need >> >> to concern about that. >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > I'm not sure but display_ops could be implemented in other framework >> >>> based >> >>> > driver such as CDF based lcd panel driver. So if you pass display - >> it's >> >>> > specific to exynos drm framework - into display_ops, the other >> framework >> >>> > based driver should include specific exynos drm header. >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> AFAIK, CDF will not land in its current separate-from-drm form, we >> >>> don't need to worry about this. Furthermore, these ops should just go >> >>> away and become drm_crtc/drm_encoder/drm_connector funcs anyways. >> >>> >> >> >> >> Can you assure the display_ops never implemented in other framework >> based >> >> driver, not CDF? At any rate, I think all possibilities should be >> opened. >> >> >> > >> > I don't think we should let an RFC framework make the code more >> > complicated for unclear benefit. By removing manager/display entirely, >> > we can get rid of a *lot* of other code that is basically just >> > plumbing drm hooks (exynos_drm_connector is a good example). >> > >> >> I hacked this up today to prove it out. Check out the top 5 commits in >> https://github.com/crseanpaul/exynos-drm-next/commits/linux-next-exynos- >> staging. >> It removes exynos_drm_connector in favor of just implementing >> drm_connector directly. This same treatment should be done for >> exynos_drm_encoder and exynos_drm_crtc, but I didn't get around to >> doing this. >> >> As you can see, it cuts out a lot of code and removes an entire >> abstraction layer. Much nicer :) >> > > It seems that you implements connector in each device driver. Can't they be > combined as common spot, exynos_connector, again to avoid codes from > duplicated? :) There's nothing of substance being duplicated. In fact, by getting rid of the exynos_drm_connector layer, we deleted 150 lines. If you really take a look at exynos_drm_connector, it's not doing anything useful. All it does is translate the drm callbacks into display callbacks, so I think it's much better to just implement the drm callbacks directly. There are a bunch of real bugs that we've found as a result of having these abstraction layers. Take, for example, dpms. Before this patchset, dpms for fimd was being tracked separately in fimd driver, exynos_drm_encoder, exynos_drm_crtc, and exynos_drm_connector. Furthermore, during suspend, only fimd driver's dpms state was updated, so the others were incorrect. There was also this weird gymnastics that had to happen when dpms was changed in the encoder since it had to walk up to the connector level to change its dpms state. If fimd just directly implemented drm_crtc/drm_encoder/drm_connector (before dp was moved in), this problem wouldn't exist. The same goes for HDMI/mixer. Take a look at exynos_drm_encoder.c in my tree (https://github.com/crseanpaul/exynos-drm-next/blob/linux-next-exynos-staging/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_encoder.c), what does it do that's useful to abstract? All that it does is just call display ops, it's completely useless. The same is true for exynos_drm_connector, it's just dead weight. There is some useful stuff in exynos_drm_crtc for page flipping, that would be better served as a helper library, though. > The abstraction layer you mentioned also means a common spot. > Another one, you patch also makes each sub driver have strongly dependency > of drm framework. So how we can support existing backlight and lcd class > based lcd panel drivers if the connector is implemented in each device > driver later? the drm header files should be included in > drivers/video/backlight/xxx_lcd.c? > drm_bridge or drm_panel seem like good candidates for this. > And, I will introduce a new framework to support existing lcd panel drivers > and display bus drivers soon; as of now for Exynos drm, and the framework is > being tested internally. With this framework, encoder and connector will be > created when lcd panel or display bus driver such as eDP is probed: it > doesn’t really need to create encoder and connector in advance if lcd panel > or display bus driver isn't probed yet. Regardless of crtc, and encoder and > connector creation order, when last one is created, crtc and connector will > be connected each other. And exynos_drm_display could be implemented in > other frameworks if we have common structure for display device driver. And > also the framework will support lvds driver according to Linux device driver > model. > I don't really follow what you're trying to do here, but I think we should be moving in the direction of fewer abstractions in the exynos driver, not more :) Sean > Thanks, > Inki Dae > >> Sean >> >> >>> >> >>> > And another one, the patch 6 passes manager object to manager_ops, >> and >> >>> for >> >>> > this, you made the manager object to be set to driver data; >> >>> > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, &manager). That isn't reasonable. >> Generally, >> >>> > driver_data would point to device driver's context object. >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> I'm not sure why this isn't reasonable, but it's a moot point. The >> >>> driver data is only used up until we get rid of the pm ops, it needn't >> >>> be set at all once things go through dpms. >> >>> >> >> >> >> Generally, device drivers can call its own internal functions, and they >> will >> >> call that functions with ctx. However, if you set manager to >> driver_data >> >> then that functions should be called with manager object and also >> internally >> >> that functions should get ctx from the manager object. What is the >> purpose >> >> of manager? Do you think it's reasonable? >> >> >> > >> > So, to avoid setting the manager as the drvdata, we could implement >> > something like fimd_dpms_ctx(ctx, mode) that takes ctx and the manager >> > callback calls it fimd_dpms(mgr, mode) { ctx = mgr->ctx; >> > fimd_dpms_ctx(ctx, mode); }. Alternatively, you can save a pointer to >> > mgr in ctx, but that creates a circular link between the two. IMO, >> > both of those solutions suck :) >> > >> > I'd much rather just set drvdata to the manager and call the hook >> > directly. Like I said earlier, this is just a temporary step since we >> > remove these pm ops later in the patch series. >> > >> > Sean >> > >> > >> >> Anyway, I'd like to say really sorry about inconvenient again. So I >> will fix >> >> it. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Inki Dae >> >> >> >>> Sean >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > Thanks, >> >>> > Inki Dae >> >>> > >> >> >
2013/10/22 Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>: > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] >>> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 6:18 AM >>> To: Inki Dae >>> Cc: dri-devel; Dave Airlie; Tomasz Figa; Stéphane Marchesin >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split manager/display/subdrv >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> wrote: >>> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] >>> >>> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 11:37 PM >>> >>> To: Inki Dae >>> >>> Cc: dri-devel; Dave Airlie; Tomasz Figa; Stéphane Marchesin >>> >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split manager/display/subdrv >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> >> -----Original Message----- >>> >>> >> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] >>> >>> >> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:27 AM >>> >>> >> To: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; inki.dae@samsung.com >>> >>> >> Cc: airlied@linux.ie; tomasz.figa@gmail.com; marcheu@chromium.org; >>> Sean >>> >>> >> Paul >>> >>> >> Subject: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split manager/display/subdrv >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> This patch splits display and manager from subdrv. The result is >>> that >>> >>> >> crtc functions can directly call into manager callbacks and encoder >>> >>> >> functions can directly call into display callbacks. This will allow >>> >>> >> us to remove the exynos_drm_hdmi shim and support mixer/hdmi & >>> fimd/dp >>> >>> >> with common code. >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> Signed-off-by: Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> >>> >>> >> --- >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> Changes in v2: >>> >>> >> - Pass display into display_ops instead of context >>> >>> > >>> >>> > Sorry but it seems like more reasonable to pass device object into >>> >>> > display_ops and manager_ops. >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> So you've changed your mind from when you said the following? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> manager->ops->xxx(manager, ...); >>> >>> >>> display->ops->xxx(display, ...); >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Agree. >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> True. Before that, My comment was to pass device object into >>> display_ops and >>> >> manager_ops, and then you said the good solution is to pass manager and >>> >> display to each driver. At that time, I thought no matter how the >>> callback >>> >> is called if the framework doesn't call callbacks of each driver with >>> ctx. >>> >> So I agreed. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> It would have been nice if you had changed your mind *before* I >>> >>> reworked everything. At any rate, I think it's still the right thing >>> >>> to do. >>> >> >>> >> Really sorry about that. And I will add new patch for it so you don't >>> need >>> >> to concern about that. >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > I'm not sure but display_ops could be implemented in other framework >>> >>> based >>> >>> > driver such as CDF based lcd panel driver. So if you pass display - >>> it's >>> >>> > specific to exynos drm framework - into display_ops, the other >>> framework >>> >>> > based driver should include specific exynos drm header. >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> AFAIK, CDF will not land in its current separate-from-drm form, we >>> >>> don't need to worry about this. Furthermore, these ops should just go >>> >>> away and become drm_crtc/drm_encoder/drm_connector funcs anyways. >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> Can you assure the display_ops never implemented in other framework >>> based >>> >> driver, not CDF? At any rate, I think all possibilities should be >>> opened. >>> >> >>> > >>> > I don't think we should let an RFC framework make the code more >>> > complicated for unclear benefit. By removing manager/display entirely, >>> > we can get rid of a *lot* of other code that is basically just >>> > plumbing drm hooks (exynos_drm_connector is a good example). >>> > >>> >>> I hacked this up today to prove it out. Check out the top 5 commits in >>> https://github.com/crseanpaul/exynos-drm-next/commits/linux-next-exynos- >>> staging. >>> It removes exynos_drm_connector in favor of just implementing >>> drm_connector directly. This same treatment should be done for >>> exynos_drm_encoder and exynos_drm_crtc, but I didn't get around to >>> doing this. >>> >>> As you can see, it cuts out a lot of code and removes an entire >>> abstraction layer. Much nicer :) >>> >> >> It seems that you implements connector in each device driver. Can't they be >> combined as common spot, exynos_connector, again to avoid codes from >> duplicated? :) > > There's nothing of substance being duplicated. Not true. xxx_create_connector is duplicated. > In fact, by getting rid > of the exynos_drm_connector layer, we deleted 150 lines. If you really > take a look at exynos_drm_connector, it's not doing anything useful. No, That is for each driver has no any dependency of drm framework. > All it does is translate the drm callbacks into display callbacks, so > I think it's much better to just implement the drm callbacks directly. > No, It has strongly dependency of drm framework. Assume that we implemented the drm callbacks directly, and then some features are added to drm framework, drm_connector side. At this time, we will have to take care of each device driver according to the change. That is really not good. Why device drivers should have dependency of drm framework? Just to reduce line counts? > There are a bunch of real bugs that we've found as a result of having > these abstraction layers. Take, for example, dpms. Before this > patchset, dpms for fimd was being tracked separately in fimd driver, > exynos_drm_encoder, exynos_drm_crtc, and exynos_drm_connector. > Furthermore, during suspend, only fimd driver's dpms state was > updated, so the others were incorrect. There was also this weird > gymnastics that had to happen when dpms was changed in the encoder > since it had to walk up to the connector level to change its dpms > state. If fimd just directly implemented > drm_crtc/drm_encoder/drm_connector (before dp was moved in), this > problem wouldn't exist. The same goes for HDMI/mixer. > That is a issue we should take care of by using the independent layer. Then, aren't you take care of that well with the re-factoring patch set? :) It seems that you are outside real point. > Take a look at exynos_drm_encoder.c in my tree > (https://github.com/crseanpaul/exynos-drm-next/blob/linux-next-exynos-staging/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_encoder.c), > what does it do that's useful to abstract? All that it does is just > call display ops, it's completely useless. The same is true for > exynos_drm_connector, it's just dead weight. There is some useful > stuff in exynos_drm_crtc for page flipping, that would be better > served as a helper library, though. > >> The abstraction layer you mentioned also means a common spot. >> Another one, you patch also makes each sub driver have strongly dependency >> of drm framework. So how we can support existing backlight and lcd class >> based lcd panel drivers if the connector is implemented in each device >> driver later? the drm header files should be included in >> drivers/video/backlight/xxx_lcd.c? >> > > drm_bridge or drm_panel seem like good candidates for this. > Yes, exynos_drm_display could be replaced with drm_panel later if the drm_panel can be merged to mainline. > >> And, I will introduce a new framework to support existing lcd panel drivers >> and display bus drivers soon; as of now for Exynos drm, and the framework is >> being tested internally. With this framework, encoder and connector will be >> created when lcd panel or display bus driver such as eDP is probed: it >> doesn’t really need to create encoder and connector in advance if lcd panel >> or display bus driver isn't probed yet. Regardless of crtc, and encoder and >> connector creation order, when last one is created, crtc and connector will >> be connected each other. And exynos_drm_display could be implemented in >> other frameworks if we have common structure for display device driver. And >> also the framework will support lvds driver according to Linux device driver >> model. >> > > I don't really follow what you're trying to do here, but I think we > should be moving in the direction of fewer abstractions in the exynos > driver, not more :) > Not abstraction layer, just a bridge for connecting crtc and its corresponding encoder/connector, and lvds regardless of creation order, and for connecting drm connector and other framework based display ops such as drm_panel later. > Sean > > > >> Thanks, >> Inki Dae >> >>> Sean >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > And another one, the patch 6 passes manager object to manager_ops, >>> and >>> >>> for >>> >>> > this, you made the manager object to be set to driver data; >>> >>> > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, &manager). That isn't reasonable. >>> Generally, >>> >>> > driver_data would point to device driver's context object. >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> I'm not sure why this isn't reasonable, but it's a moot point. The >>> >>> driver data is only used up until we get rid of the pm ops, it needn't >>> >>> be set at all once things go through dpms. >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> Generally, device drivers can call its own internal functions, and they >>> will >>> >> call that functions with ctx. However, if you set manager to >>> driver_data >>> >> then that functions should be called with manager object and also >>> internally >>> >> that functions should get ctx from the manager object. What is the >>> purpose >>> >> of manager? Do you think it's reasonable? >>> >> >>> > >>> > So, to avoid setting the manager as the drvdata, we could implement >>> > something like fimd_dpms_ctx(ctx, mode) that takes ctx and the manager >>> > callback calls it fimd_dpms(mgr, mode) { ctx = mgr->ctx; >>> > fimd_dpms_ctx(ctx, mode); }. Alternatively, you can save a pointer to >>> > mgr in ctx, but that creates a circular link between the two. IMO, >>> > both of those solutions suck :) >>> > >>> > I'd much rather just set drvdata to the manager and call the hook >>> > directly. Like I said earlier, this is just a temporary step since we >>> > remove these pm ops later in the patch series. >>> > >>> > Sean >>> > >>> > >>> >> Anyway, I'd like to say really sorry about inconvenient again. So I >>> will fix >>> >> it. >>> >> >>> >> Thanks, >>> >> Inki Dae >>> >> >>> >>> Sean >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > Thanks, >>> >>> > Inki Dae >>> >>> > >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: > 2013/10/22 Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>: > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] > >>> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 6:18 AM > >>> To: Inki Dae > >>> Cc: dri-devel; Dave Airlie; Tomasz Figa; Stéphane Marchesin > >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split manager/display/subdrv > >>> > >>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> > wrote: > >>> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> > wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> >>> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] > >>> >>> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 11:37 PM > >>> >>> To: Inki Dae > >>> >>> Cc: dri-devel; Dave Airlie; Tomasz Figa; Stéphane Marchesin > >>> >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split > manager/display/subdrv > >>> >>> > >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> > >> wrote: > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> >> -----Original Message----- > >>> >>> >> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] > >>> >>> >> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:27 AM > >>> >>> >> To: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; inki.dae@samsung.com > >>> >>> >> Cc: airlied@linux.ie; tomasz.figa@gmail.com; > marcheu@chromium.org; > >>> Sean > >>> >>> >> Paul > >>> >>> >> Subject: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split > manager/display/subdrv > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> This patch splits display and manager from subdrv. The result is > >>> that > >>> >>> >> crtc functions can directly call into manager callbacks and > encoder > >>> >>> >> functions can directly call into display callbacks. This will > allow > >>> >>> >> us to remove the exynos_drm_hdmi shim and support mixer/hdmi & > >>> fimd/dp > >>> >>> >> with common code. > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> Signed-off-by: Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> > >>> >>> >> --- > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> Changes in v2: > >>> >>> >> - Pass display into display_ops instead of context > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > Sorry but it seems like more reasonable to pass device object > into > >>> >>> > display_ops and manager_ops. > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> So you've changed your mind from when you said the following? > >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> manager->ops->xxx(manager, ...); > >>> >>> >>> display->ops->xxx(display, ...); > >>> >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> Agree. > >>> >>> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> True. Before that, My comment was to pass device object into > >>> display_ops and > >>> >> manager_ops, and then you said the good solution is to pass manager > and > >>> >> display to each driver. At that time, I thought no matter how the > >>> callback > >>> >> is called if the framework doesn't call callbacks of each driver > with > >>> ctx. > >>> >> So I agreed. > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >>> It would have been nice if you had changed your mind *before* I > >>> >>> reworked everything. At any rate, I think it's still the right > thing > >>> >>> to do. > >>> >> > >>> >> Really sorry about that. And I will add new patch for it so you > don't > >>> need > >>> >> to concern about that. > >>> >> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > I'm not sure but display_ops could be implemented in other > framework > >>> >>> based > >>> >>> > driver such as CDF based lcd panel driver. So if you pass > display - > >>> it's > >>> >>> > specific to exynos drm framework - into display_ops, the other > >>> framework > >>> >>> > based driver should include specific exynos drm header. > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > >>> >>> AFAIK, CDF will not land in its current separate-from-drm form, we > >>> >>> don't need to worry about this. Furthermore, these ops should just > go > >>> >>> away and become drm_crtc/drm_encoder/drm_connector funcs anyways. > >>> >>> > >>> >> > >>> >> Can you assure the display_ops never implemented in other framework > >>> based > >>> >> driver, not CDF? At any rate, I think all possibilities should be > >>> opened. > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> > I don't think we should let an RFC framework make the code more > >>> > complicated for unclear benefit. By removing manager/display > entirely, > >>> > we can get rid of a *lot* of other code that is basically just > >>> > plumbing drm hooks (exynos_drm_connector is a good example). > >>> > > >>> > >>> I hacked this up today to prove it out. Check out the top 5 commits in > >>> > https://github.com/crseanpaul/exynos-drm-next/commits/linux-next-exynos- > >>> staging. > >>> It removes exynos_drm_connector in favor of just implementing > >>> drm_connector directly. This same treatment should be done for > >>> exynos_drm_encoder and exynos_drm_crtc, but I didn't get around to > >>> doing this. > >>> > >>> As you can see, it cuts out a lot of code and removes an entire > >>> abstraction layer. Much nicer :) > >>> > >> > >> It seems that you implements connector in each device driver. Can't > they be > >> combined as common spot, exynos_connector, again to avoid codes from > >> duplicated? :) > > > > There's nothing of substance being duplicated. > > Not true. xxx_create_connector is duplicated. > > > In fact, by getting rid > > of the exynos_drm_connector layer, we deleted 150 lines. If you really > > take a look at exynos_drm_connector, it's not doing anything useful. > > No, That is for each driver has no any dependency of drm framework. > > > All it does is translate the drm callbacks into display callbacks, so > > I think it's much better to just implement the drm callbacks directly. > > > > No, It has strongly dependency of drm framework. Assume that we > implemented the drm callbacks directly, and then some features are > added to drm framework, drm_connector side. At this time, we will have > to take care of each device driver according to the change. That is > really not good. Why device drivers should have dependency of drm > framework? Just to reduce line counts? > You seem to miss the point here and elsewhere in the discussion. drm/exynos is a drm driver, and as such it should use the drm framework, especially if this reduces the line count and the code complexity (as is the case for this patch series). If you don't want to maintain a drm driver, it simply should be moved away from drm/, and it should be replaced by a real drm driver in my opinion. Stéphane > > > There are a bunch of real bugs that we've found as a result of having > > these abstraction layers. Take, for example, dpms. Before this > > patchset, dpms for fimd was being tracked separately in fimd driver, > > exynos_drm_encoder, exynos_drm_crtc, and exynos_drm_connector. > > Furthermore, during suspend, only fimd driver's dpms state was > > updated, so the others were incorrect. There was also this weird > > gymnastics that had to happen when dpms was changed in the encoder > > since it had to walk up to the connector level to change its dpms > > state. If fimd just directly implemented > > drm_crtc/drm_encoder/drm_connector (before dp was moved in), this > > problem wouldn't exist. The same goes for HDMI/mixer. > > > > That is a issue we should take care of by using the independent layer. > Then, aren't you take care of that well with the re-factoring patch > set? :) It seems that you are outside real point. > > > Take a look at exynos_drm_encoder.c in my tree > > ( > https://github.com/crseanpaul/exynos-drm-next/blob/linux-next-exynos-staging/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_encoder.c > ), > > what does it do that's useful to abstract? All that it does is just > > call display ops, it's completely useless. The same is true for > > exynos_drm_connector, it's just dead weight. There is some useful > > stuff in exynos_drm_crtc for page flipping, that would be better > > served as a helper library, though. > > > >> The abstraction layer you mentioned also means a common spot. > >> Another one, you patch also makes each sub driver have strongly > dependency > >> of drm framework. So how we can support existing backlight and lcd class > >> based lcd panel drivers if the connector is implemented in each device > >> driver later? the drm header files should be included in > >> drivers/video/backlight/xxx_lcd.c? > >> > > > > drm_bridge or drm_panel seem like good candidates for this. > > > > Yes, exynos_drm_display could be replaced with drm_panel later if the > drm_panel can be merged to mainline. > > > > >> And, I will introduce a new framework to support existing lcd panel > drivers > >> and display bus drivers soon; as of now for Exynos drm, and the > framework is > >> being tested internally. With this framework, encoder and connector > will be > >> created when lcd panel or display bus driver such as eDP is probed: it > >> doesn’t really need to create encoder and connector in advance if lcd > panel > >> or display bus driver isn't probed yet. Regardless of crtc, and encoder > and > >> connector creation order, when last one is created, crtc and connector > will > >> be connected each other. And exynos_drm_display could be implemented in > >> other frameworks if we have common structure for display device driver. > And > >> also the framework will support lvds driver according to Linux device > driver > >> model. > >> > > > > I don't really follow what you're trying to do here, but I think we > > should be moving in the direction of fewer abstractions in the exynos > > driver, not more :) > > > > Not abstraction layer, just a bridge for connecting crtc and its > corresponding encoder/connector, and lvds regardless of creation > order, and for connecting drm connector and other framework based > display ops such as drm_panel later. > > > Sean > > > > > > > >> Thanks, > >> Inki Dae > >> > >>> Sean > >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > And another one, the patch 6 passes manager object to > manager_ops, > >>> and > >>> >>> for > >>> >>> > this, you made the manager object to be set to driver data; > >>> >>> > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, &manager). That isn't reasonable. > >>> Generally, > >>> >>> > driver_data would point to device driver's context object. > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > >>> >>> I'm not sure why this isn't reasonable, but it's a moot point. The > >>> >>> driver data is only used up until we get rid of the pm ops, it > needn't > >>> >>> be set at all once things go through dpms. > >>> >>> > >>> >> > >>> >> Generally, device drivers can call its own internal functions, and > they > >>> will > >>> >> call that functions with ctx. However, if you set manager to > >>> driver_data > >>> >> then that functions should be called with manager object and also > >>> internally > >>> >> that functions should get ctx from the manager object. What is the > >>> purpose > >>> >> of manager? Do you think it's reasonable? > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> > So, to avoid setting the manager as the drvdata, we could implement > >>> > something like fimd_dpms_ctx(ctx, mode) that takes ctx and the > manager > >>> > callback calls it fimd_dpms(mgr, mode) { ctx = mgr->ctx; > >>> > fimd_dpms_ctx(ctx, mode); }. Alternatively, you can save a pointer to > >>> > mgr in ctx, but that creates a circular link between the two. IMO, > >>> > both of those solutions suck :) > >>> > > >>> > I'd much rather just set drvdata to the manager and call the hook > >>> > directly. Like I said earlier, this is just a temporary step since we > >>> > remove these pm ops later in the patch series. > >>> > > >>> > Sean > >>> > > >>> > > >>> >> Anyway, I'd like to say really sorry about inconvenient again. So I > >>> will fix > >>> >> it. > >>> >> > >>> >> Thanks, > >>> >> Inki Dae > >>> >> > >>> >>> Sean > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > Thanks, > >>> >>> > Inki Dae > >>> >>> > > >>> >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > dri-devel mailing list > > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >
2013/10/23 Stéphane Marchesin <stephane.marchesin@gmail.com>: > > > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: >> >> 2013/10/22 Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>: >> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] >> >>> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 6:18 AM >> >>> To: Inki Dae >> >>> Cc: dri-devel; Dave Airlie; Tomasz Figa; Stéphane Marchesin >> >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split manager/display/subdrv >> >>> >> >>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> >> >>> > wrote: >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> >>> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] >> >>> >>> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 11:37 PM >> >>> >>> To: Inki Dae >> >>> >>> Cc: dri-devel; Dave Airlie; Tomasz Figa; Stéphane Marchesin >> >>> >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split >> >>> >>> manager/display/subdrv >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> >> -----Original Message----- >> >>> >>> >> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] >> >>> >>> >> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:27 AM >> >>> >>> >> To: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; inki.dae@samsung.com >> >>> >>> >> Cc: airlied@linux.ie; tomasz.figa@gmail.com; >> >>> >>> >> marcheu@chromium.org; >> >>> Sean >> >>> >>> >> Paul >> >>> >>> >> Subject: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split >> >>> >>> >> manager/display/subdrv >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> This patch splits display and manager from subdrv. The result >> >>> >>> >> is >> >>> that >> >>> >>> >> crtc functions can directly call into manager callbacks and >> >>> >>> >> encoder >> >>> >>> >> functions can directly call into display callbacks. This will >> >>> >>> >> allow >> >>> >>> >> us to remove the exynos_drm_hdmi shim and support mixer/hdmi & >> >>> fimd/dp >> >>> >>> >> with common code. >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> Signed-off-by: Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> >> >>> >>> >> --- >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> Changes in v2: >> >>> >>> >> - Pass display into display_ops instead of context >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> > Sorry but it seems like more reasonable to pass device object >> >>> >>> > into >> >>> >>> > display_ops and manager_ops. >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> So you've changed your mind from when you said the following? >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> manager->ops->xxx(manager, ...); >> >>> >>> >>> display->ops->xxx(display, ...); >> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> Agree. >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> True. Before that, My comment was to pass device object into >> >>> display_ops and >> >>> >> manager_ops, and then you said the good solution is to pass manager >> >>> >> and >> >>> >> display to each driver. At that time, I thought no matter how the >> >>> callback >> >>> >> is called if the framework doesn't call callbacks of each driver >> >>> >> with >> >>> ctx. >> >>> >> So I agreed. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >>> It would have been nice if you had changed your mind *before* I >> >>> >>> reworked everything. At any rate, I think it's still the right >> >>> >>> thing >> >>> >>> to do. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Really sorry about that. And I will add new patch for it so you >> >>> >> don't >> >>> need >> >>> >> to concern about that. >> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> > I'm not sure but display_ops could be implemented in other >> >>> >>> > framework >> >>> >>> based >> >>> >>> > driver such as CDF based lcd panel driver. So if you pass >> >>> >>> > display - >> >>> it's >> >>> >>> > specific to exynos drm framework - into display_ops, the other >> >>> framework >> >>> >>> > based driver should include specific exynos drm header. >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> AFAIK, CDF will not land in its current separate-from-drm form, we >> >>> >>> don't need to worry about this. Furthermore, these ops should just >> >>> >>> go >> >>> >>> away and become drm_crtc/drm_encoder/drm_connector funcs anyways. >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Can you assure the display_ops never implemented in other framework >> >>> based >> >>> >> driver, not CDF? At any rate, I think all possibilities should be >> >>> opened. >> >>> >> >> >>> > >> >>> > I don't think we should let an RFC framework make the code more >> >>> > complicated for unclear benefit. By removing manager/display >> >>> > entirely, >> >>> > we can get rid of a *lot* of other code that is basically just >> >>> > plumbing drm hooks (exynos_drm_connector is a good example). >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> I hacked this up today to prove it out. Check out the top 5 commits in >> >>> >> >>> https://github.com/crseanpaul/exynos-drm-next/commits/linux-next-exynos- >> >>> staging. >> >>> It removes exynos_drm_connector in favor of just implementing >> >>> drm_connector directly. This same treatment should be done for >> >>> exynos_drm_encoder and exynos_drm_crtc, but I didn't get around to >> >>> doing this. >> >>> >> >>> As you can see, it cuts out a lot of code and removes an entire >> >>> abstraction layer. Much nicer :) >> >>> >> >> >> >> It seems that you implements connector in each device driver. Can't >> >> they be >> >> combined as common spot, exynos_connector, again to avoid codes from >> >> duplicated? :) >> > >> > There's nothing of substance being duplicated. >> >> Not true. xxx_create_connector is duplicated. >> >> > In fact, by getting rid >> > of the exynos_drm_connector layer, we deleted 150 lines. If you really >> > take a look at exynos_drm_connector, it's not doing anything useful. >> >> No, That is for each driver has no any dependency of drm framework. >> >> > All it does is translate the drm callbacks into display callbacks, so >> > I think it's much better to just implement the drm callbacks directly. >> > >> >> No, It has strongly dependency of drm framework. Assume that we >> implemented the drm callbacks directly, and then some features are >> added to drm framework, drm_connector side. At this time, we will have >> to take care of each device driver according to the change. That is >> really not good. Why device drivers should have dependency of drm >> framework? Just to reduce line counts? > > > > You seem to miss the point here and elsewhere in the discussion. > drm/exynos is a drm driver, and as such it should use the drm > framework, Hm.. you seem to miss something. Exynos drm based drivers are based on exynos drm framework, not drm framework directly. So I mean that Exynos drm framework based drivers should include only Exynos drm headers, _not drm header_ directly. > especially if this reduces the line count and the code > complexity (as is the case for this patch series). If you don't want > to maintain a drm driver, it simply should be moved away from drm/, > and it should be replaced by a real drm driver in my opinion. So those drivers should be in drm/exynos. Isn't that you really mean those drivers should be driver/gpu/drm? If so, That would really be horrible. :( Please, know that only Exynos drm framework, _not device drivers_, has all dependencies of drm framework, and also I know that other ARM based drm drivers are using same way. Thanks, Inki Dae > > Stéphane > >> >> >> > There are a bunch of real bugs that we've found as a result of having >> > these abstraction layers. Take, for example, dpms. Before this >> > patchset, dpms for fimd was being tracked separately in fimd driver, >> > exynos_drm_encoder, exynos_drm_crtc, and exynos_drm_connector. >> > Furthermore, during suspend, only fimd driver's dpms state was >> > updated, so the others were incorrect. There was also this weird >> > gymnastics that had to happen when dpms was changed in the encoder >> > since it had to walk up to the connector level to change its dpms >> > state. If fimd just directly implemented >> > drm_crtc/drm_encoder/drm_connector (before dp was moved in), this >> > problem wouldn't exist. The same goes for HDMI/mixer. >> > >> >> That is a issue we should take care of by using the independent layer. >> Then, aren't you take care of that well with the re-factoring patch >> set? :) It seems that you are outside real point. >> >> > Take a look at exynos_drm_encoder.c in my tree >> > >> > (https://github.com/crseanpaul/exynos-drm-next/blob/linux-next-exynos-staging/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_encoder.c), >> > what does it do that's useful to abstract? All that it does is just >> > call display ops, it's completely useless. The same is true for >> > exynos_drm_connector, it's just dead weight. There is some useful >> > stuff in exynos_drm_crtc for page flipping, that would be better >> > served as a helper library, though. >> > >> >> The abstraction layer you mentioned also means a common spot. >> >> Another one, you patch also makes each sub driver have strongly >> >> dependency >> >> of drm framework. So how we can support existing backlight and lcd >> >> class >> >> based lcd panel drivers if the connector is implemented in each device >> >> driver later? the drm header files should be included in >> >> drivers/video/backlight/xxx_lcd.c? >> >> >> > >> > drm_bridge or drm_panel seem like good candidates for this. >> > >> >> Yes, exynos_drm_display could be replaced with drm_panel later if the >> drm_panel can be merged to mainline. >> >> > >> >> And, I will introduce a new framework to support existing lcd panel >> >> drivers >> >> and display bus drivers soon; as of now for Exynos drm, and the >> >> framework is >> >> being tested internally. With this framework, encoder and connector >> >> will be >> >> created when lcd panel or display bus driver such as eDP is probed: it >> >> doesn’t really need to create encoder and connector in advance if lcd >> >> panel >> >> or display bus driver isn't probed yet. Regardless of crtc, and encoder >> >> and >> >> connector creation order, when last one is created, crtc and connector >> >> will >> >> be connected each other. And exynos_drm_display could be implemented in >> >> other frameworks if we have common structure for display device driver. >> >> And >> >> also the framework will support lvds driver according to Linux device >> >> driver >> >> model. >> >> >> > >> > I don't really follow what you're trying to do here, but I think we >> > should be moving in the direction of fewer abstractions in the exynos >> > driver, not more :) >> > >> >> Not abstraction layer, just a bridge for connecting crtc and its >> corresponding encoder/connector, and lvds regardless of creation >> order, and for connecting drm connector and other framework based >> display ops such as drm_panel later. >> >> > Sean >> > >> > >> > >> >> Thanks, >> >> Inki Dae >> >> >> >>> Sean >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> > And another one, the patch 6 passes manager object to >> >>> >>> > manager_ops, >> >>> and >> >>> >>> for >> >>> >>> > this, you made the manager object to be set to driver data; >> >>> >>> > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, &manager). That isn't reasonable. >> >>> Generally, >> >>> >>> > driver_data would point to device driver's context object. >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> I'm not sure why this isn't reasonable, but it's a moot point. The >> >>> >>> driver data is only used up until we get rid of the pm ops, it >> >>> >>> needn't >> >>> >>> be set at all once things go through dpms. >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Generally, device drivers can call its own internal functions, and >> >>> >> they >> >>> will >> >>> >> call that functions with ctx. However, if you set manager to >> >>> driver_data >> >>> >> then that functions should be called with manager object and also >> >>> internally >> >>> >> that functions should get ctx from the manager object. What is the >> >>> purpose >> >>> >> of manager? Do you think it's reasonable? >> >>> >> >> >>> > >> >>> > So, to avoid setting the manager as the drvdata, we could implement >> >>> > something like fimd_dpms_ctx(ctx, mode) that takes ctx and the >> >>> > manager >> >>> > callback calls it fimd_dpms(mgr, mode) { ctx = mgr->ctx; >> >>> > fimd_dpms_ctx(ctx, mode); }. Alternatively, you can save a pointer >> >>> > to >> >>> > mgr in ctx, but that creates a circular link between the two. IMO, >> >>> > both of those solutions suck :) >> >>> > >> >>> > I'd much rather just set drvdata to the manager and call the hook >> >>> > directly. Like I said earlier, this is just a temporary step since >> >>> > we >> >>> > remove these pm ops later in the patch series. >> >>> > >> >>> > Sean >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> >> Anyway, I'd like to say really sorry about inconvenient again. So I >> >>> will fix >> >>> >> it. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Thanks, >> >>> >> Inki Dae >> >>> >> >> >>> >>> Sean >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> > Thanks, >> >>> >>> > Inki Dae >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> > dri-devel mailing list >> > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >> _______________________________________________ >> dri-devel mailing list >> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel > > > > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 10:28 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: > 2013/10/22 Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>: >> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 6:18 AM >>>> To: Inki Dae >>>> Cc: dri-devel; Dave Airlie; Tomasz Figa; Stéphane Marchesin >>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split manager/display/subdrv >>>> >>>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> wrote: >>>> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>>> >>> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] >>>> >>> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 11:37 PM >>>> >>> To: Inki Dae >>>> >>> Cc: dri-devel; Dave Airlie; Tomasz Figa; Stéphane Marchesin >>>> >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split manager/display/subdrv >>>> >>> >>>> >>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> >> -----Original Message----- >>>> >>> >> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] >>>> >>> >> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:27 AM >>>> >>> >> To: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; inki.dae@samsung.com >>>> >>> >> Cc: airlied@linux.ie; tomasz.figa@gmail.com; marcheu@chromium.org; >>>> Sean >>>> >>> >> Paul >>>> >>> >> Subject: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split manager/display/subdrv >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >> This patch splits display and manager from subdrv. The result is >>>> that >>>> >>> >> crtc functions can directly call into manager callbacks and encoder >>>> >>> >> functions can directly call into display callbacks. This will allow >>>> >>> >> us to remove the exynos_drm_hdmi shim and support mixer/hdmi & >>>> fimd/dp >>>> >>> >> with common code. >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >> Signed-off-by: Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> >>>> >>> >> --- >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >> Changes in v2: >>>> >>> >> - Pass display into display_ops instead of context >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > Sorry but it seems like more reasonable to pass device object into >>>> >>> > display_ops and manager_ops. >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> So you've changed your mind from when you said the following? >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> manager->ops->xxx(manager, ...); >>>> >>> >>> display->ops->xxx(display, ...); >>>> >>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> Agree. >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> True. Before that, My comment was to pass device object into >>>> display_ops and >>>> >> manager_ops, and then you said the good solution is to pass manager and >>>> >> display to each driver. At that time, I thought no matter how the >>>> callback >>>> >> is called if the framework doesn't call callbacks of each driver with >>>> ctx. >>>> >> So I agreed. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>> It would have been nice if you had changed your mind *before* I >>>> >>> reworked everything. At any rate, I think it's still the right thing >>>> >>> to do. >>>> >> >>>> >> Really sorry about that. And I will add new patch for it so you don't >>>> need >>>> >> to concern about that. >>>> >> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> > I'm not sure but display_ops could be implemented in other framework >>>> >>> based >>>> >>> > driver such as CDF based lcd panel driver. So if you pass display - >>>> it's >>>> >>> > specific to exynos drm framework - into display_ops, the other >>>> framework >>>> >>> > based driver should include specific exynos drm header. >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> >>>> >>> AFAIK, CDF will not land in its current separate-from-drm form, we >>>> >>> don't need to worry about this. Furthermore, these ops should just go >>>> >>> away and become drm_crtc/drm_encoder/drm_connector funcs anyways. >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> >> Can you assure the display_ops never implemented in other framework >>>> based >>>> >> driver, not CDF? At any rate, I think all possibilities should be >>>> opened. >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > I don't think we should let an RFC framework make the code more >>>> > complicated for unclear benefit. By removing manager/display entirely, >>>> > we can get rid of a *lot* of other code that is basically just >>>> > plumbing drm hooks (exynos_drm_connector is a good example). >>>> > >>>> >>>> I hacked this up today to prove it out. Check out the top 5 commits in >>>> https://github.com/crseanpaul/exynos-drm-next/commits/linux-next-exynos- >>>> staging. >>>> It removes exynos_drm_connector in favor of just implementing >>>> drm_connector directly. This same treatment should be done for >>>> exynos_drm_encoder and exynos_drm_crtc, but I didn't get around to >>>> doing this. >>>> >>>> As you can see, it cuts out a lot of code and removes an entire >>>> abstraction layer. Much nicer :) >>>> >>> >>> It seems that you implements connector in each device driver. Can't they be >>> combined as common spot, exynos_connector, again to avoid codes from >>> duplicated? :) >> >> There's nothing of substance being duplicated. > > Not true. xxx_create_connector is duplicated. > I said nothing *of substance*, all of the other drm drivers call drm_connector_init for each display type. >> In fact, by getting rid >> of the exynos_drm_connector layer, we deleted 150 lines. If you really >> take a look at exynos_drm_connector, it's not doing anything useful. > > No, That is for each driver has no any dependency of drm framework. > I didn't think this was desirable :) >> All it does is translate the drm callbacks into display callbacks, so >> I think it's much better to just implement the drm callbacks directly. >> > > No, It has strongly dependency of drm framework. Assume that we > implemented the drm callbacks directly, and then some features are > added to drm framework, drm_connector side. At this time, we will have > to take care of each device driver according to the change. That is > really not good. Why device drivers should have dependency of drm > framework? Just to reduce line counts? > Assuming someone adds something to drm_connector, it's their responsibility to bring all other drivers forward with that change. Device drivers should have a dependency on drm framework because that's the API that everyone on this list has agreed to use. Why invent something else? What's the point of having independent hooks that almost identically mirror the drm framework? >> There are a bunch of real bugs that we've found as a result of having >> these abstraction layers. Take, for example, dpms. Before this >> patchset, dpms for fimd was being tracked separately in fimd driver, >> exynos_drm_encoder, exynos_drm_crtc, and exynos_drm_connector. >> Furthermore, during suspend, only fimd driver's dpms state was >> updated, so the others were incorrect. There was also this weird >> gymnastics that had to happen when dpms was changed in the encoder >> since it had to walk up to the connector level to change its dpms >> state. If fimd just directly implemented >> drm_crtc/drm_encoder/drm_connector (before dp was moved in), this >> problem wouldn't exist. The same goes for HDMI/mixer. >> > > That is a issue we should take care of by using the independent layer. > Then, aren't you take care of that well with the re-factoring patch > set? :) It seems that you are outside real point. > Right, I took out the connector and encoder dpms state, but it still exists in crtc. I was trying to point out the class of issues that comes from this type of shim. >> Take a look at exynos_drm_encoder.c in my tree >> (https://github.com/crseanpaul/exynos-drm-next/blob/linux-next-exynos-staging/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_encoder.c), >> what does it do that's useful to abstract? All that it does is just >> call display ops, it's completely useless. The same is true for >> exynos_drm_connector, it's just dead weight. There is some useful >> stuff in exynos_drm_crtc for page flipping, that would be better >> served as a helper library, though. >> >>> The abstraction layer you mentioned also means a common spot. >>> Another one, you patch also makes each sub driver have strongly dependency >>> of drm framework. So how we can support existing backlight and lcd class >>> based lcd panel drivers if the connector is implemented in each device >>> driver later? the drm header files should be included in >>> drivers/video/backlight/xxx_lcd.c? >>> >> >> drm_bridge or drm_panel seem like good candidates for this. >> > > Yes, exynos_drm_display could be replaced with drm_panel later if the > drm_panel can be merged to mainline. > Well, exynos_drm_display can be replaced today by drm_encoder/drm_connector. >> >>> And, I will introduce a new framework to support existing lcd panel drivers >>> and display bus drivers soon; as of now for Exynos drm, and the framework is >>> being tested internally. With this framework, encoder and connector will be >>> created when lcd panel or display bus driver such as eDP is probed: it >>> doesn’t really need to create encoder and connector in advance if lcd panel >>> or display bus driver isn't probed yet. Regardless of crtc, and encoder and >>> connector creation order, when last one is created, crtc and connector will >>> be connected each other. And exynos_drm_display could be implemented in >>> other frameworks if we have common structure for display device driver. And >>> also the framework will support lvds driver according to Linux device driver >>> model. >>> >> >> I don't really follow what you're trying to do here, but I think we >> should be moving in the direction of fewer abstractions in the exynos >> driver, not more :) >> > > Not abstraction layer, just a bridge for connecting crtc and its > corresponding encoder/connector, and lvds regardless of creation > order, and for connecting drm connector and other framework based > display ops such as drm_panel later. > I guess we see things differently. It seems like you want to do a bunch of stuff that is outside of the drm framework, I assumed that you wanted this to be a proper drm driver. Not surprisingly, I'm with Stephane on this, I'd like for exynos to be a first-class drm driver, and that can't happen with these homebrew interfaces. Sean >> Sean >> >> >> >>> Thanks, >>> Inki Dae >>> >>>> Sean >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> > And another one, the patch 6 passes manager object to manager_ops, >>>> and >>>> >>> for >>>> >>> > this, you made the manager object to be set to driver data; >>>> >>> > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, &manager). That isn't reasonable. >>>> Generally, >>>> >>> > driver_data would point to device driver's context object. >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I'm not sure why this isn't reasonable, but it's a moot point. The >>>> >>> driver data is only used up until we get rid of the pm ops, it needn't >>>> >>> be set at all once things go through dpms. >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> >> Generally, device drivers can call its own internal functions, and they >>>> will >>>> >> call that functions with ctx. However, if you set manager to >>>> driver_data >>>> >> then that functions should be called with manager object and also >>>> internally >>>> >> that functions should get ctx from the manager object. What is the >>>> purpose >>>> >> of manager? Do you think it's reasonable? >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > So, to avoid setting the manager as the drvdata, we could implement >>>> > something like fimd_dpms_ctx(ctx, mode) that takes ctx and the manager >>>> > callback calls it fimd_dpms(mgr, mode) { ctx = mgr->ctx; >>>> > fimd_dpms_ctx(ctx, mode); }. Alternatively, you can save a pointer to >>>> > mgr in ctx, but that creates a circular link between the two. IMO, >>>> > both of those solutions suck :) >>>> > >>>> > I'd much rather just set drvdata to the manager and call the hook >>>> > directly. Like I said earlier, this is just a temporary step since we >>>> > remove these pm ops later in the patch series. >>>> > >>>> > Sean >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >> Anyway, I'd like to say really sorry about inconvenient again. So I >>>> will fix >>>> >> it. >>>> >> >>>> >> Thanks, >>>> >> Inki Dae >>>> >> >>>> >>> Sean >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> > Thanks, >>>> >>> > Inki Dae >>>> >>> > >>>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> dri-devel mailing list >> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: > 2013/10/23 Stéphane Marchesin <stephane.marchesin@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: > >> > >> 2013/10/22 Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>: > >> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>> -----Original Message----- > >> >>> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] > >> >>> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 6:18 AM > >> >>> To: Inki Dae > >> >>> Cc: dri-devel; Dave Airlie; Tomasz Figa; Stéphane Marchesin > >> >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split > manager/display/subdrv > >> >>> > >> >>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> > >> >>> wrote: > >> >>> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> > >> >>> > wrote: > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- > >> >>> >>> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] > >> >>> >>> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 11:37 PM > >> >>> >>> To: Inki Dae > >> >>> >>> Cc: dri-devel; Dave Airlie; Tomasz Figa; Stéphane Marchesin > >> >>> >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split > >> >>> >>> manager/display/subdrv > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com > > > >> >> wrote: > >> >>> >>> > > >> >>> >>> > > >> >>> >>> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >>> >>> >> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] > >> >>> >>> >> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:27 AM > >> >>> >>> >> To: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; inki.dae@samsung.com > >> >>> >>> >> Cc: airlied@linux.ie; tomasz.figa@gmail.com; > >> >>> >>> >> marcheu@chromium.org; > >> >>> Sean > >> >>> >>> >> Paul > >> >>> >>> >> Subject: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split > >> >>> >>> >> manager/display/subdrv > >> >>> >>> >> > >> >>> >>> >> This patch splits display and manager from subdrv. The result > >> >>> >>> >> is > >> >>> that > >> >>> >>> >> crtc functions can directly call into manager callbacks and > >> >>> >>> >> encoder > >> >>> >>> >> functions can directly call into display callbacks. This will > >> >>> >>> >> allow > >> >>> >>> >> us to remove the exynos_drm_hdmi shim and support mixer/hdmi > & > >> >>> fimd/dp > >> >>> >>> >> with common code. > >> >>> >>> >> > >> >>> >>> >> Signed-off-by: Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> > >> >>> >>> >> --- > >> >>> >>> >> > >> >>> >>> >> Changes in v2: > >> >>> >>> >> - Pass display into display_ops instead of context > >> >>> >>> > > >> >>> >>> > Sorry but it seems like more reasonable to pass device object > >> >>> >>> > into > >> >>> >>> > display_ops and manager_ops. > >> >>> >>> > > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> So you've changed your mind from when you said the following? > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> >>> manager->ops->xxx(manager, ...); > >> >>> >>> >>> display->ops->xxx(display, ...); > >> >>> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> >>> Agree. > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> True. Before that, My comment was to pass device object into > >> >>> display_ops and > >> >>> >> manager_ops, and then you said the good solution is to pass > manager > >> >>> >> and > >> >>> >> display to each driver. At that time, I thought no matter how the > >> >>> callback > >> >>> >> is called if the framework doesn't call callbacks of each driver > >> >>> >> with > >> >>> ctx. > >> >>> >> So I agreed. > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >>> It would have been nice if you had changed your mind *before* I > >> >>> >>> reworked everything. At any rate, I think it's still the right > >> >>> >>> thing > >> >>> >>> to do. > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> Really sorry about that. And I will add new patch for it so you > >> >>> >> don't > >> >>> need > >> >>> >> to concern about that. > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> > I'm not sure but display_ops could be implemented in other > >> >>> >>> > framework > >> >>> >>> based > >> >>> >>> > driver such as CDF based lcd panel driver. So if you pass > >> >>> >>> > display - > >> >>> it's > >> >>> >>> > specific to exynos drm framework - into display_ops, the other > >> >>> framework > >> >>> >>> > based driver should include specific exynos drm header. > >> >>> >>> > > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> AFAIK, CDF will not land in its current separate-from-drm form, > we > >> >>> >>> don't need to worry about this. Furthermore, these ops should > just > >> >>> >>> go > >> >>> >>> away and become drm_crtc/drm_encoder/drm_connector funcs > anyways. > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> Can you assure the display_ops never implemented in other > framework > >> >>> based > >> >>> >> driver, not CDF? At any rate, I think all possibilities should be > >> >>> opened. > >> >>> >> > >> >>> > > >> >>> > I don't think we should let an RFC framework make the code more > >> >>> > complicated for unclear benefit. By removing manager/display > >> >>> > entirely, > >> >>> > we can get rid of a *lot* of other code that is basically just > >> >>> > plumbing drm hooks (exynos_drm_connector is a good example). > >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> >>> I hacked this up today to prove it out. Check out the top 5 commits > in > >> >>> > >> >>> > https://github.com/crseanpaul/exynos-drm-next/commits/linux-next-exynos- > >> >>> staging. > >> >>> It removes exynos_drm_connector in favor of just implementing > >> >>> drm_connector directly. This same treatment should be done for > >> >>> exynos_drm_encoder and exynos_drm_crtc, but I didn't get around to > >> >>> doing this. > >> >>> > >> >>> As you can see, it cuts out a lot of code and removes an entire > >> >>> abstraction layer. Much nicer :) > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> It seems that you implements connector in each device driver. Can't > >> >> they be > >> >> combined as common spot, exynos_connector, again to avoid codes from > >> >> duplicated? :) > >> > > >> > There's nothing of substance being duplicated. > >> > >> Not true. xxx_create_connector is duplicated. > >> > >> > In fact, by getting rid > >> > of the exynos_drm_connector layer, we deleted 150 lines. If you really > >> > take a look at exynos_drm_connector, it's not doing anything useful. > >> > >> No, That is for each driver has no any dependency of drm framework. > >> > >> > All it does is translate the drm callbacks into display callbacks, so > >> > I think it's much better to just implement the drm callbacks directly. > >> > > >> > >> No, It has strongly dependency of drm framework. Assume that we > >> implemented the drm callbacks directly, and then some features are > >> added to drm framework, drm_connector side. At this time, we will have > >> to take care of each device driver according to the change. That is > >> really not good. Why device drivers should have dependency of drm > >> framework? Just to reduce line counts? > > > > > > > > You seem to miss the point here and elsewhere in the discussion. > > drm/exynos is a drm driver, and as such it should use the drm > > framework, > > Hm.. you seem to miss something. Exynos drm based drivers are based on > exynos drm framework, not drm framework directly. So I mean that > Exynos drm framework based drivers should include only Exynos drm > headers, _not drm header_ directly. > Well, I think everyone sees that exynos is different. But my point still remains: why is the exynos driver in drm/ if it wants to use a different framework? Right now it is blocking work on a proper drm driver... > > > especially if this reduces the line count and the code > > complexity (as is the case for this patch series). If you don't want > > to maintain a drm driver, it simply should be moved away from drm/, > > and it should be replaced by a real drm driver in my opinion. > > So those drivers should be in drm/exynos. Isn't that you really mean > those drivers should be driver/gpu/drm? I don't understand this sentence, sorry. Stéphane > If so, That would really be > horrible. :( > > > Please, know that only Exynos drm framework, _not device drivers_, has > all dependencies of drm framework, and also I know that other ARM > based drm drivers are using same way. > > Thanks, > Inki Dae > > > > > Stéphane > > > >> > >> > >> > There are a bunch of real bugs that we've found as a result of having > >> > these abstraction layers. Take, for example, dpms. Before this > >> > patchset, dpms for fimd was being tracked separately in fimd driver, > >> > exynos_drm_encoder, exynos_drm_crtc, and exynos_drm_connector. > >> > Furthermore, during suspend, only fimd driver's dpms state was > >> > updated, so the others were incorrect. There was also this weird > >> > gymnastics that had to happen when dpms was changed in the encoder > >> > since it had to walk up to the connector level to change its dpms > >> > state. If fimd just directly implemented > >> > drm_crtc/drm_encoder/drm_connector (before dp was moved in), this > >> > problem wouldn't exist. The same goes for HDMI/mixer. > >> > > >> > >> That is a issue we should take care of by using the independent layer. > >> Then, aren't you take care of that well with the re-factoring patch > >> set? :) It seems that you are outside real point. > >> > >> > Take a look at exynos_drm_encoder.c in my tree > >> > > >> > ( > https://github.com/crseanpaul/exynos-drm-next/blob/linux-next-exynos-staging/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_encoder.c > ), > >> > what does it do that's useful to abstract? All that it does is just > >> > call display ops, it's completely useless. The same is true for > >> > exynos_drm_connector, it's just dead weight. There is some useful > >> > stuff in exynos_drm_crtc for page flipping, that would be better > >> > served as a helper library, though. > >> > > >> >> The abstraction layer you mentioned also means a common spot. > >> >> Another one, you patch also makes each sub driver have strongly > >> >> dependency > >> >> of drm framework. So how we can support existing backlight and lcd > >> >> class > >> >> based lcd panel drivers if the connector is implemented in each > device > >> >> driver later? the drm header files should be included in > >> >> drivers/video/backlight/xxx_lcd.c? > >> >> > >> > > >> > drm_bridge or drm_panel seem like good candidates for this. > >> > > >> > >> Yes, exynos_drm_display could be replaced with drm_panel later if the > >> drm_panel can be merged to mainline. > >> > >> > > >> >> And, I will introduce a new framework to support existing lcd panel > >> >> drivers > >> >> and display bus drivers soon; as of now for Exynos drm, and the > >> >> framework is > >> >> being tested internally. With this framework, encoder and connector > >> >> will be > >> >> created when lcd panel or display bus driver such as eDP is probed: > it > >> >> doesn’t really need to create encoder and connector in advance if lcd > >> >> panel > >> >> or display bus driver isn't probed yet. Regardless of crtc, and > encoder > >> >> and > >> >> connector creation order, when last one is created, crtc and > connector > >> >> will > >> >> be connected each other. And exynos_drm_display could be implemented > in > >> >> other frameworks if we have common structure for display device > driver. > >> >> And > >> >> also the framework will support lvds driver according to Linux device > >> >> driver > >> >> model. > >> >> > >> > > >> > I don't really follow what you're trying to do here, but I think we > >> > should be moving in the direction of fewer abstractions in the exynos > >> > driver, not more :) > >> > > >> > >> Not abstraction layer, just a bridge for connecting crtc and its > >> corresponding encoder/connector, and lvds regardless of creation > >> order, and for connecting drm connector and other framework based > >> display ops such as drm_panel later. > >> > >> > Sean > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >> Thanks, > >> >> Inki Dae > >> >> > >> >>> Sean > >> >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> > And another one, the patch 6 passes manager object to > >> >>> >>> > manager_ops, > >> >>> and > >> >>> >>> for > >> >>> >>> > this, you made the manager object to be set to driver data; > >> >>> >>> > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, &manager). That isn't reasonable. > >> >>> Generally, > >> >>> >>> > driver_data would point to device driver's context object. > >> >>> >>> > > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> I'm not sure why this isn't reasonable, but it's a moot point. > The > >> >>> >>> driver data is only used up until we get rid of the pm ops, it > >> >>> >>> needn't > >> >>> >>> be set at all once things go through dpms. > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> Generally, device drivers can call its own internal functions, > and > >> >>> >> they > >> >>> will > >> >>> >> call that functions with ctx. However, if you set manager to > >> >>> driver_data > >> >>> >> then that functions should be called with manager object and also > >> >>> internally > >> >>> >> that functions should get ctx from the manager object. What is > the > >> >>> purpose > >> >>> >> of manager? Do you think it's reasonable? > >> >>> >> > >> >>> > > >> >>> > So, to avoid setting the manager as the drvdata, we could > implement > >> >>> > something like fimd_dpms_ctx(ctx, mode) that takes ctx and the > >> >>> > manager > >> >>> > callback calls it fimd_dpms(mgr, mode) { ctx = mgr->ctx; > >> >>> > fimd_dpms_ctx(ctx, mode); }. Alternatively, you can save a pointer > >> >>> > to > >> >>> > mgr in ctx, but that creates a circular link between the two. IMO, > >> >>> > both of those solutions suck :) > >> >>> > > >> >>> > I'd much rather just set drvdata to the manager and call the hook > >> >>> > directly. Like I said earlier, this is just a temporary step since > >> >>> > we > >> >>> > remove these pm ops later in the patch series. > >> >>> > > >> >>> > Sean > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> >> Anyway, I'd like to say really sorry about inconvenient again. > So I > >> >>> will fix > >> >>> >> it. > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> Thanks, > >> >>> >> Inki Dae > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >>> Sean > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> > Thanks, > >> >>> >>> > Inki Dae > >> >>> >>> > > >> >>> >> > >> >> > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > dri-devel mailing list > >> > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > >> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel > >> _______________________________________________ > >> dri-devel mailing list > >> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > dri-devel mailing list > > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel > > >
2013/10/23 Stéphane Marchesin <stephane.marchesin@gmail.com>: > > > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: >> >> 2013/10/23 Stéphane Marchesin <stephane.marchesin@gmail.com>: >> > >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> 2013/10/22 Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>: >> >> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >> >>> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] >> >> >>> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 6:18 AM >> >> >>> To: Inki Dae >> >> >>> Cc: dri-devel; Dave Airlie; Tomasz Figa; Stéphane Marchesin >> >> >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split >> >> >>> manager/display/subdrv >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> >> >> >>> wrote: >> >> >>> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> >> >> >>> > wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >> >>> >>> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] >> >> >>> >>> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 11:37 PM >> >> >>> >>> To: Inki Dae >> >> >>> >>> Cc: dri-devel; Dave Airlie; Tomasz Figa; Stéphane Marchesin >> >> >>> >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split >> >> >>> >>> manager/display/subdrv >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Inki Dae >> >> >>> >>> <inki.dae@samsung.com> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >>> >>> > >> >> >>> >>> > >> >> >>> >>> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> >>> >>> >> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] >> >> >>> >>> >> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:27 AM >> >> >>> >>> >> To: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; inki.dae@samsung.com >> >> >>> >>> >> Cc: airlied@linux.ie; tomasz.figa@gmail.com; >> >> >>> >>> >> marcheu@chromium.org; >> >> >>> Sean >> >> >>> >>> >> Paul >> >> >>> >>> >> Subject: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split >> >> >>> >>> >> manager/display/subdrv >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> This patch splits display and manager from subdrv. The >> >> >>> >>> >> result >> >> >>> >>> >> is >> >> >>> that >> >> >>> >>> >> crtc functions can directly call into manager callbacks and >> >> >>> >>> >> encoder >> >> >>> >>> >> functions can directly call into display callbacks. This >> >> >>> >>> >> will >> >> >>> >>> >> allow >> >> >>> >>> >> us to remove the exynos_drm_hdmi shim and support mixer/hdmi >> >> >>> >>> >> & >> >> >>> fimd/dp >> >> >>> >>> >> with common code. >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> Signed-off-by: Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> >> >> >>> >>> >> --- >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> Changes in v2: >> >> >>> >>> >> - Pass display into display_ops instead of context >> >> >>> >>> > >> >> >>> >>> > Sorry but it seems like more reasonable to pass device object >> >> >>> >>> > into >> >> >>> >>> > display_ops and manager_ops. >> >> >>> >>> > >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> So you've changed your mind from when you said the following? >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> manager->ops->xxx(manager, ...); >> >> >>> >>> >>> display->ops->xxx(display, ...); >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> Agree. >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> True. Before that, My comment was to pass device object into >> >> >>> display_ops and >> >> >>> >> manager_ops, and then you said the good solution is to pass >> >> >>> >> manager >> >> >>> >> and >> >> >>> >> display to each driver. At that time, I thought no matter how >> >> >>> >> the >> >> >>> callback >> >> >>> >> is called if the framework doesn't call callbacks of each driver >> >> >>> >> with >> >> >>> ctx. >> >> >>> >> So I agreed. >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> It would have been nice if you had changed your mind *before* I >> >> >>> >>> reworked everything. At any rate, I think it's still the right >> >> >>> >>> thing >> >> >>> >>> to do. >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> Really sorry about that. And I will add new patch for it so you >> >> >>> >> don't >> >> >>> need >> >> >>> >> to concern about that. >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> > I'm not sure but display_ops could be implemented in other >> >> >>> >>> > framework >> >> >>> >>> based >> >> >>> >>> > driver such as CDF based lcd panel driver. So if you pass >> >> >>> >>> > display - >> >> >>> it's >> >> >>> >>> > specific to exynos drm framework - into display_ops, the >> >> >>> >>> > other >> >> >>> framework >> >> >>> >>> > based driver should include specific exynos drm header. >> >> >>> >>> > >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> AFAIK, CDF will not land in its current separate-from-drm form, >> >> >>> >>> we >> >> >>> >>> don't need to worry about this. Furthermore, these ops should >> >> >>> >>> just >> >> >>> >>> go >> >> >>> >>> away and become drm_crtc/drm_encoder/drm_connector funcs >> >> >>> >>> anyways. >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> Can you assure the display_ops never implemented in other >> >> >>> >> framework >> >> >>> based >> >> >>> >> driver, not CDF? At any rate, I think all possibilities should >> >> >>> >> be >> >> >>> opened. >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > I don't think we should let an RFC framework make the code more >> >> >>> > complicated for unclear benefit. By removing manager/display >> >> >>> > entirely, >> >> >>> > we can get rid of a *lot* of other code that is basically just >> >> >>> > plumbing drm hooks (exynos_drm_connector is a good example). >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> >> >> >>> I hacked this up today to prove it out. Check out the top 5 commits >> >> >>> in >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> https://github.com/crseanpaul/exynos-drm-next/commits/linux-next-exynos- >> >> >>> staging. >> >> >>> It removes exynos_drm_connector in favor of just implementing >> >> >>> drm_connector directly. This same treatment should be done for >> >> >>> exynos_drm_encoder and exynos_drm_crtc, but I didn't get around to >> >> >>> doing this. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> As you can see, it cuts out a lot of code and removes an entire >> >> >>> abstraction layer. Much nicer :) >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> It seems that you implements connector in each device driver. Can't >> >> >> they be >> >> >> combined as common spot, exynos_connector, again to avoid codes from >> >> >> duplicated? :) >> >> > >> >> > There's nothing of substance being duplicated. >> >> >> >> Not true. xxx_create_connector is duplicated. >> >> >> >> > In fact, by getting rid >> >> > of the exynos_drm_connector layer, we deleted 150 lines. If you >> >> > really >> >> > take a look at exynos_drm_connector, it's not doing anything useful. >> >> >> >> No, That is for each driver has no any dependency of drm framework. >> >> >> >> > All it does is translate the drm callbacks into display callbacks, so >> >> > I think it's much better to just implement the drm callbacks >> >> > directly. >> >> > >> >> >> >> No, It has strongly dependency of drm framework. Assume that we >> >> implemented the drm callbacks directly, and then some features are >> >> added to drm framework, drm_connector side. At this time, we will have >> >> to take care of each device driver according to the change. That is >> >> really not good. Why device drivers should have dependency of drm >> >> framework? Just to reduce line counts? >> > >> > >> > >> > You seem to miss the point here and elsewhere in the discussion. >> > drm/exynos is a drm driver, and as such it should use the drm >> > framework, >> >> Hm.. you seem to miss something. Exynos drm based drivers are based on >> exynos drm framework, not drm framework directly. So I mean that >> Exynos drm framework based drivers should include only Exynos drm >> headers, _not drm header_ directly. > > > Well, I think everyone sees that exynos is different. But my point still > remains: why is the exynos driver in drm/ if it wants to use a different > framework? Right now it is blocking work on a proper drm driver... > Noooooo. It's not to use a different framework. It's to use a wrapper instead. > >> >> >> > especially if this reduces the line count and the code >> > complexity (as is the case for this patch series). If you don't want >> > to maintain a drm driver, it simply should be moved away from drm/, >> > and it should be replaced by a real drm driver in my opinion. >> >> So those drivers should be in drm/exynos. Isn't that you really mean >> those drivers should be driver/gpu/drm? > > > I don't understand this sentence, sorry. Sorry, again, you mean Exynos drm based drivers should be in drivers/gpu/drm, not drivers/gpu/drm/exynos? Thanks, Inki Dae > > Stéphane > > >> >> If so, That would really be >> horrible. :( >> > > >> >> Please, know that only Exynos drm framework, _not device drivers_, has >> all dependencies of drm framework, and also I know that other ARM >> based drm drivers are using same way. >> >> Thanks, >> Inki Dae >> >> > >> > Stéphane >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > There are a bunch of real bugs that we've found as a result of having >> >> > these abstraction layers. Take, for example, dpms. Before this >> >> > patchset, dpms for fimd was being tracked separately in fimd driver, >> >> > exynos_drm_encoder, exynos_drm_crtc, and exynos_drm_connector. >> >> > Furthermore, during suspend, only fimd driver's dpms state was >> >> > updated, so the others were incorrect. There was also this weird >> >> > gymnastics that had to happen when dpms was changed in the encoder >> >> > since it had to walk up to the connector level to change its dpms >> >> > state. If fimd just directly implemented >> >> > drm_crtc/drm_encoder/drm_connector (before dp was moved in), this >> >> > problem wouldn't exist. The same goes for HDMI/mixer. >> >> > >> >> >> >> That is a issue we should take care of by using the independent layer. >> >> Then, aren't you take care of that well with the re-factoring patch >> >> set? :) It seems that you are outside real point. >> >> >> >> > Take a look at exynos_drm_encoder.c in my tree >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > (https://github.com/crseanpaul/exynos-drm-next/blob/linux-next-exynos-staging/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_encoder.c), >> >> > what does it do that's useful to abstract? All that it does is just >> >> > call display ops, it's completely useless. The same is true for >> >> > exynos_drm_connector, it's just dead weight. There is some useful >> >> > stuff in exynos_drm_crtc for page flipping, that would be better >> >> > served as a helper library, though. >> >> > >> >> >> The abstraction layer you mentioned also means a common spot. >> >> >> Another one, you patch also makes each sub driver have strongly >> >> >> dependency >> >> >> of drm framework. So how we can support existing backlight and lcd >> >> >> class >> >> >> based lcd panel drivers if the connector is implemented in each >> >> >> device >> >> >> driver later? the drm header files should be included in >> >> >> drivers/video/backlight/xxx_lcd.c? >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > drm_bridge or drm_panel seem like good candidates for this. >> >> > >> >> >> >> Yes, exynos_drm_display could be replaced with drm_panel later if the >> >> drm_panel can be merged to mainline. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> And, I will introduce a new framework to support existing lcd panel >> >> >> drivers >> >> >> and display bus drivers soon; as of now for Exynos drm, and the >> >> >> framework is >> >> >> being tested internally. With this framework, encoder and connector >> >> >> will be >> >> >> created when lcd panel or display bus driver such as eDP is probed: >> >> >> it >> >> >> doesn’t really need to create encoder and connector in advance if >> >> >> lcd >> >> >> panel >> >> >> or display bus driver isn't probed yet. Regardless of crtc, and >> >> >> encoder >> >> >> and >> >> >> connector creation order, when last one is created, crtc and >> >> >> connector >> >> >> will >> >> >> be connected each other. And exynos_drm_display could be implemented >> >> >> in >> >> >> other frameworks if we have common structure for display device >> >> >> driver. >> >> >> And >> >> >> also the framework will support lvds driver according to Linux >> >> >> device >> >> >> driver >> >> >> model. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > I don't really follow what you're trying to do here, but I think we >> >> > should be moving in the direction of fewer abstractions in the exynos >> >> > driver, not more :) >> >> > >> >> >> >> Not abstraction layer, just a bridge for connecting crtc and its >> >> corresponding encoder/connector, and lvds regardless of creation >> >> order, and for connecting drm connector and other framework based >> >> display ops such as drm_panel later. >> >> >> >> > Sean >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> Inki Dae >> >> >> >> >> >>> Sean >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> > And another one, the patch 6 passes manager object to >> >> >>> >>> > manager_ops, >> >> >>> and >> >> >>> >>> for >> >> >>> >>> > this, you made the manager object to be set to driver data; >> >> >>> >>> > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, &manager). That isn't reasonable. >> >> >>> Generally, >> >> >>> >>> > driver_data would point to device driver's context object. >> >> >>> >>> > >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> I'm not sure why this isn't reasonable, but it's a moot point. >> >> >>> >>> The >> >> >>> >>> driver data is only used up until we get rid of the pm ops, it >> >> >>> >>> needn't >> >> >>> >>> be set at all once things go through dpms. >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> Generally, device drivers can call its own internal functions, >> >> >>> >> and >> >> >>> >> they >> >> >>> will >> >> >>> >> call that functions with ctx. However, if you set manager to >> >> >>> driver_data >> >> >>> >> then that functions should be called with manager object and >> >> >>> >> also >> >> >>> internally >> >> >>> >> that functions should get ctx from the manager object. What is >> >> >>> >> the >> >> >>> purpose >> >> >>> >> of manager? Do you think it's reasonable? >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > So, to avoid setting the manager as the drvdata, we could >> >> >>> > implement >> >> >>> > something like fimd_dpms_ctx(ctx, mode) that takes ctx and the >> >> >>> > manager >> >> >>> > callback calls it fimd_dpms(mgr, mode) { ctx = mgr->ctx; >> >> >>> > fimd_dpms_ctx(ctx, mode); }. Alternatively, you can save a >> >> >>> > pointer >> >> >>> > to >> >> >>> > mgr in ctx, but that creates a circular link between the two. >> >> >>> > IMO, >> >> >>> > both of those solutions suck :) >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > I'd much rather just set drvdata to the manager and call the hook >> >> >>> > directly. Like I said earlier, this is just a temporary step >> >> >>> > since >> >> >>> > we >> >> >>> > remove these pm ops later in the patch series. >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > Sean >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> >> Anyway, I'd like to say really sorry about inconvenient again. >> >> >>> >> So I >> >> >>> will fix >> >> >>> >> it. >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> Thanks, >> >> >>> >> Inki Dae >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> Sean >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> > Thanks, >> >> >>> >>> > Inki Dae >> >> >>> >>> > >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> > dri-devel mailing list >> >> > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >> >> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> dri-devel mailing list >> >> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >> >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > dri-devel mailing list >> > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: > 2013/10/23 Stéphane Marchesin <stephane.marchesin@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: > >> > >> 2013/10/23 Stéphane Marchesin <stephane.marchesin@gmail.com>: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> 2013/10/22 Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>: > >> >> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- > >> >> >>> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] > >> >> >>> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 6:18 AM > >> >> >>> To: Inki Dae > >> >> >>> Cc: dri-devel; Dave Airlie; Tomasz Figa; Stéphane Marchesin > >> >> >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split > >> >> >>> manager/display/subdrv > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Sean Paul < > seanpaul@chromium.org> > >> >> >>> wrote: > >> >> >>> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Inki Dae < > inki.dae@samsung.com> > >> >> >>> > wrote: > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- > >> >> >>> >>> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] > >> >> >>> >>> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 11:37 PM > >> >> >>> >>> To: Inki Dae > >> >> >>> >>> Cc: dri-devel; Dave Airlie; Tomasz Figa; Stéphane Marchesin > >> >> >>> >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split > >> >> >>> >>> manager/display/subdrv > >> >> >>> >>> > >> >> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Inki Dae > >> >> >>> >>> <inki.dae@samsung.com> > >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >>> >>> > > >> >> >>> >>> > > >> >> >>> >>> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >> >>> >>> >> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] > >> >> >>> >>> >> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:27 AM > >> >> >>> >>> >> To: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; inki.dae@samsung.com > >> >> >>> >>> >> Cc: airlied@linux.ie; tomasz.figa@gmail.com; > >> >> >>> >>> >> marcheu@chromium.org; > >> >> >>> Sean > >> >> >>> >>> >> Paul > >> >> >>> >>> >> Subject: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split > >> >> >>> >>> >> manager/display/subdrv > >> >> >>> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >>> >> This patch splits display and manager from subdrv. The > >> >> >>> >>> >> result > >> >> >>> >>> >> is > >> >> >>> that > >> >> >>> >>> >> crtc functions can directly call into manager callbacks > and > >> >> >>> >>> >> encoder > >> >> >>> >>> >> functions can directly call into display callbacks. This > >> >> >>> >>> >> will > >> >> >>> >>> >> allow > >> >> >>> >>> >> us to remove the exynos_drm_hdmi shim and support > mixer/hdmi > >> >> >>> >>> >> & > >> >> >>> fimd/dp > >> >> >>> >>> >> with common code. > >> >> >>> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >>> >> Signed-off-by: Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> > >> >> >>> >>> >> --- > >> >> >>> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >>> >> Changes in v2: > >> >> >>> >>> >> - Pass display into display_ops instead of context > >> >> >>> >>> > > >> >> >>> >>> > Sorry but it seems like more reasonable to pass device > object > >> >> >>> >>> > into > >> >> >>> >>> > display_ops and manager_ops. > >> >> >>> >>> > > >> >> >>> >>> > >> >> >>> >>> > >> >> >>> >>> So you've changed your mind from when you said the following? > >> >> >>> >>> > >> >> >>> >>> >>> manager->ops->xxx(manager, ...); > >> >> >>> >>> >>> display->ops->xxx(display, ...); > >> >> >>> >>> >>> > >> >> >>> >>> >>> Agree. > >> >> >>> >>> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> True. Before that, My comment was to pass device object into > >> >> >>> display_ops and > >> >> >>> >> manager_ops, and then you said the good solution is to pass > >> >> >>> >> manager > >> >> >>> >> and > >> >> >>> >> display to each driver. At that time, I thought no matter how > >> >> >>> >> the > >> >> >>> callback > >> >> >>> >> is called if the framework doesn't call callbacks of each > driver > >> >> >>> >> with > >> >> >>> ctx. > >> >> >>> >> So I agreed. > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >>> It would have been nice if you had changed your mind > *before* I > >> >> >>> >>> reworked everything. At any rate, I think it's still the > right > >> >> >>> >>> thing > >> >> >>> >>> to do. > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> Really sorry about that. And I will add new patch for it so > you > >> >> >>> >> don't > >> >> >>> need > >> >> >>> >> to concern about that. > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >>> > >> >> >>> >>> > >> >> >>> >>> > I'm not sure but display_ops could be implemented in other > >> >> >>> >>> > framework > >> >> >>> >>> based > >> >> >>> >>> > driver such as CDF based lcd panel driver. So if you pass > >> >> >>> >>> > display - > >> >> >>> it's > >> >> >>> >>> > specific to exynos drm framework - into display_ops, the > >> >> >>> >>> > other > >> >> >>> framework > >> >> >>> >>> > based driver should include specific exynos drm header. > >> >> >>> >>> > > >> >> >>> >>> > >> >> >>> >>> AFAIK, CDF will not land in its current separate-from-drm > form, > >> >> >>> >>> we > >> >> >>> >>> don't need to worry about this. Furthermore, these ops should > >> >> >>> >>> just > >> >> >>> >>> go > >> >> >>> >>> away and become drm_crtc/drm_encoder/drm_connector funcs > >> >> >>> >>> anyways. > >> >> >>> >>> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> Can you assure the display_ops never implemented in other > >> >> >>> >> framework > >> >> >>> based > >> >> >>> >> driver, not CDF? At any rate, I think all possibilities should > >> >> >>> >> be > >> >> >>> opened. > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > I don't think we should let an RFC framework make the code more > >> >> >>> > complicated for unclear benefit. By removing manager/display > >> >> >>> > entirely, > >> >> >>> > we can get rid of a *lot* of other code that is basically just > >> >> >>> > plumbing drm hooks (exynos_drm_connector is a good example). > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> I hacked this up today to prove it out. Check out the top 5 > commits > >> >> >>> in > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > https://github.com/crseanpaul/exynos-drm-next/commits/linux-next-exynos- > >> >> >>> staging. > >> >> >>> It removes exynos_drm_connector in favor of just implementing > >> >> >>> drm_connector directly. This same treatment should be done for > >> >> >>> exynos_drm_encoder and exynos_drm_crtc, but I didn't get around > to > >> >> >>> doing this. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> As you can see, it cuts out a lot of code and removes an entire > >> >> >>> abstraction layer. Much nicer :) > >> >> >>> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> It seems that you implements connector in each device driver. > Can't > >> >> >> they be > >> >> >> combined as common spot, exynos_connector, again to avoid codes > from > >> >> >> duplicated? :) > >> >> > > >> >> > There's nothing of substance being duplicated. > >> >> > >> >> Not true. xxx_create_connector is duplicated. > >> >> > >> >> > In fact, by getting rid > >> >> > of the exynos_drm_connector layer, we deleted 150 lines. If you > >> >> > really > >> >> > take a look at exynos_drm_connector, it's not doing anything > useful. > >> >> > >> >> No, That is for each driver has no any dependency of drm framework. > >> >> > >> >> > All it does is translate the drm callbacks into display callbacks, > so > >> >> > I think it's much better to just implement the drm callbacks > >> >> > directly. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> No, It has strongly dependency of drm framework. Assume that we > >> >> implemented the drm callbacks directly, and then some features are > >> >> added to drm framework, drm_connector side. At this time, we will > have > >> >> to take care of each device driver according to the change. That is > >> >> really not good. Why device drivers should have dependency of drm > >> >> framework? Just to reduce line counts? > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > You seem to miss the point here and elsewhere in the discussion. > >> > drm/exynos is a drm driver, and as such it should use the drm > >> > framework, > >> > >> Hm.. you seem to miss something. Exynos drm based drivers are based on > >> exynos drm framework, not drm framework directly. So I mean that > >> Exynos drm framework based drivers should include only Exynos drm > >> headers, _not drm header_ directly. > > > > > > Well, I think everyone sees that exynos is different. But my point still > > remains: why is the exynos driver in drm/ if it wants to use a different > > framework? Right now it is blocking work on a proper drm driver... > > > > Noooooo. It's not to use a different framework. It's to use a wrapper > instead. > Ok, if you want to call it a wrapper, then what is the point of doing this wrapping given that it prevents a proper drm-style implementation? > > > >> > >> > >> > especially if this reduces the line count and the code > >> > complexity (as is the case for this patch series). If you don't want > >> > to maintain a drm driver, it simply should be moved away from drm/, > >> > and it should be replaced by a real drm driver in my opinion. > >> > >> So those drivers should be in drm/exynos. Isn't that you really mean > >> those drivers should be driver/gpu/drm? > > > > > > I don't understand this sentence, sorry. > > Sorry, again, you mean Exynos drm based drivers should be in > drivers/gpu/drm, not drivers/gpu/drm/exynos? > > Is the exynos drm useful in its current shape at all? My recommendation would be to fork off a real drm driver in gpu/drm/exynos with the current code as a base. Stéphane > Thanks, > Inki Dae > > > > > Stéphane > > > > > >> > >> If so, That would really be > >> horrible. :( > >> > > > > > >> > >> Please, know that only Exynos drm framework, _not device drivers_, has > >> all dependencies of drm framework, and also I know that other ARM > >> based drm drivers are using same way. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Inki Dae > >> > >> > > >> > Stéphane > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > There are a bunch of real bugs that we've found as a result of > having > >> >> > these abstraction layers. Take, for example, dpms. Before this > >> >> > patchset, dpms for fimd was being tracked separately in fimd > driver, > >> >> > exynos_drm_encoder, exynos_drm_crtc, and exynos_drm_connector. > >> >> > Furthermore, during suspend, only fimd driver's dpms state was > >> >> > updated, so the others were incorrect. There was also this weird > >> >> > gymnastics that had to happen when dpms was changed in the encoder > >> >> > since it had to walk up to the connector level to change its dpms > >> >> > state. If fimd just directly implemented > >> >> > drm_crtc/drm_encoder/drm_connector (before dp was moved in), this > >> >> > problem wouldn't exist. The same goes for HDMI/mixer. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> That is a issue we should take care of by using the independent > layer. > >> >> Then, aren't you take care of that well with the re-factoring patch > >> >> set? :) It seems that you are outside real point. > >> >> > >> >> > Take a look at exynos_drm_encoder.c in my tree > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > ( > https://github.com/crseanpaul/exynos-drm-next/blob/linux-next-exynos-staging/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_encoder.c > ), > >> >> > what does it do that's useful to abstract? All that it does is just > >> >> > call display ops, it's completely useless. The same is true for > >> >> > exynos_drm_connector, it's just dead weight. There is some useful > >> >> > stuff in exynos_drm_crtc for page flipping, that would be better > >> >> > served as a helper library, though. > >> >> > > >> >> >> The abstraction layer you mentioned also means a common spot. > >> >> >> Another one, you patch also makes each sub driver have strongly > >> >> >> dependency > >> >> >> of drm framework. So how we can support existing backlight and lcd > >> >> >> class > >> >> >> based lcd panel drivers if the connector is implemented in each > >> >> >> device > >> >> >> driver later? the drm header files should be included in > >> >> >> drivers/video/backlight/xxx_lcd.c? > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > drm_bridge or drm_panel seem like good candidates for this. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> Yes, exynos_drm_display could be replaced with drm_panel later if the > >> >> drm_panel can be merged to mainline. > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> And, I will introduce a new framework to support existing lcd > panel > >> >> >> drivers > >> >> >> and display bus drivers soon; as of now for Exynos drm, and the > >> >> >> framework is > >> >> >> being tested internally. With this framework, encoder and > connector > >> >> >> will be > >> >> >> created when lcd panel or display bus driver such as eDP is > probed: > >> >> >> it > >> >> >> doesn’t really need to create encoder and connector in advance if > >> >> >> lcd > >> >> >> panel > >> >> >> or display bus driver isn't probed yet. Regardless of crtc, and > >> >> >> encoder > >> >> >> and > >> >> >> connector creation order, when last one is created, crtc and > >> >> >> connector > >> >> >> will > >> >> >> be connected each other. And exynos_drm_display could be > implemented > >> >> >> in > >> >> >> other frameworks if we have common structure for display device > >> >> >> driver. > >> >> >> And > >> >> >> also the framework will support lvds driver according to Linux > >> >> >> device > >> >> >> driver > >> >> >> model. > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > I don't really follow what you're trying to do here, but I think we > >> >> > should be moving in the direction of fewer abstractions in the > exynos > >> >> > driver, not more :) > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> Not abstraction layer, just a bridge for connecting crtc and its > >> >> corresponding encoder/connector, and lvds regardless of creation > >> >> order, and for connecting drm connector and other framework based > >> >> display ops such as drm_panel later. > >> >> > >> >> > Sean > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >> Thanks, > >> >> >> Inki Dae > >> >> >> > >> >> >>> Sean > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> >>> > >> >> >>> >>> > And another one, the patch 6 passes manager object to > >> >> >>> >>> > manager_ops, > >> >> >>> and > >> >> >>> >>> for > >> >> >>> >>> > this, you made the manager object to be set to driver data; > >> >> >>> >>> > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, &manager). That isn't > reasonable. > >> >> >>> Generally, > >> >> >>> >>> > driver_data would point to device driver's context object. > >> >> >>> >>> > > >> >> >>> >>> > >> >> >>> >>> I'm not sure why this isn't reasonable, but it's a moot > point. > >> >> >>> >>> The > >> >> >>> >>> driver data is only used up until we get rid of the pm ops, > it > >> >> >>> >>> needn't > >> >> >>> >>> be set at all once things go through dpms. > >> >> >>> >>> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> Generally, device drivers can call its own internal functions, > >> >> >>> >> and > >> >> >>> >> they > >> >> >>> will > >> >> >>> >> call that functions with ctx. However, if you set manager to > >> >> >>> driver_data > >> >> >>> >> then that functions should be called with manager object and > >> >> >>> >> also > >> >> >>> internally > >> >> >>> >> that functions should get ctx from the manager object. What is > >> >> >>> >> the > >> >> >>> purpose > >> >> >>> >> of manager? Do you think it's reasonable? > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > So, to avoid setting the manager as the drvdata, we could > >> >> >>> > implement > >> >> >>> > something like fimd_dpms_ctx(ctx, mode) that takes ctx and the > >> >> >>> > manager > >> >> >>> > callback calls it fimd_dpms(mgr, mode) { ctx = mgr->ctx; > >> >> >>> > fimd_dpms_ctx(ctx, mode); }. Alternatively, you can save a > >> >> >>> > pointer > >> >> >>> > to > >> >> >>> > mgr in ctx, but that creates a circular link between the two. > >> >> >>> > IMO, > >> >> >>> > both of those solutions suck :) > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > I'd much rather just set drvdata to the manager and call the > hook > >> >> >>> > directly. Like I said earlier, this is just a temporary step > >> >> >>> > since > >> >> >>> > we > >> >> >>> > remove these pm ops later in the patch series. > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > Sean > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> >> Anyway, I'd like to say really sorry about inconvenient again. > >> >> >>> >> So I > >> >> >>> will fix > >> >> >>> >> it. > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> Thanks, > >> >> >>> >> Inki Dae > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >>> Sean > >> >> >>> >>> > >> >> >>> >>> > >> >> >>> >>> > Thanks, > >> >> >>> >>> > Inki Dae > >> >> >>> >>> > > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > _______________________________________________ > >> >> > dri-devel mailing list > >> >> > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > >> >> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> dri-devel mailing list > >> >> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > >> >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > dri-devel mailing list > >> > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > >> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel > >> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > dri-devel mailing list > > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel > > >
2013/10/23 Stéphane Marchesin <stephane.marchesin@gmail.com>: > > > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: >> >> 2013/10/23 Stéphane Marchesin <stephane.marchesin@gmail.com>: >> > >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> 2013/10/23 Stéphane Marchesin <stephane.marchesin@gmail.com>: >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> 2013/10/22 Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>: >> >> >> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >> >> >>> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] >> >> >> >>> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 6:18 AM >> >> >> >>> To: Inki Dae >> >> >> >>> Cc: dri-devel; Dave Airlie; Tomasz Figa; Stéphane Marchesin >> >> >> >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split >> >> >> >>> manager/display/subdrv >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Sean Paul >> >> >> >>> <seanpaul@chromium.org> >> >> >> >>> wrote: >> >> >> >>> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Inki Dae >> >> >> >>> > <inki.dae@samsung.com> >> >> >> >>> > wrote: >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >> >> >>> >>> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] >> >> >> >>> >>> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 11:37 PM >> >> >> >>> >>> To: Inki Dae >> >> >> >>> >>> Cc: dri-devel; Dave Airlie; Tomasz Figa; Stéphane Marchesin >> >> >> >>> >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split >> >> >> >>> >>> manager/display/subdrv >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Inki Dae >> >> >> >>> >>> <inki.dae@samsung.com> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> >>> > >> >> >> >>> >>> > >> >> >> >>> >>> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> >> >>> >>> >> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] >> >> >> >>> >>> >> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:27 AM >> >> >> >>> >>> >> To: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; inki.dae@samsung.com >> >> >> >>> >>> >> Cc: airlied@linux.ie; tomasz.figa@gmail.com; >> >> >> >>> >>> >> marcheu@chromium.org; >> >> >> >>> Sean >> >> >> >>> >>> >> Paul >> >> >> >>> >>> >> Subject: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split >> >> >> >>> >>> >> manager/display/subdrv >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> This patch splits display and manager from subdrv. The >> >> >> >>> >>> >> result >> >> >> >>> >>> >> is >> >> >> >>> that >> >> >> >>> >>> >> crtc functions can directly call into manager callbacks >> >> >> >>> >>> >> and >> >> >> >>> >>> >> encoder >> >> >> >>> >>> >> functions can directly call into display callbacks. This >> >> >> >>> >>> >> will >> >> >> >>> >>> >> allow >> >> >> >>> >>> >> us to remove the exynos_drm_hdmi shim and support >> >> >> >>> >>> >> mixer/hdmi >> >> >> >>> >>> >> & >> >> >> >>> fimd/dp >> >> >> >>> >>> >> with common code. >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> Signed-off-by: Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> --- >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> Changes in v2: >> >> >> >>> >>> >> - Pass display into display_ops instead of context >> >> >> >>> >>> > >> >> >> >>> >>> > Sorry but it seems like more reasonable to pass device >> >> >> >>> >>> > object >> >> >> >>> >>> > into >> >> >> >>> >>> > display_ops and manager_ops. >> >> >> >>> >>> > >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> So you've changed your mind from when you said the >> >> >> >>> >>> following? >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> manager->ops->xxx(manager, ...); >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> display->ops->xxx(display, ...); >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> Agree. >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> True. Before that, My comment was to pass device object into >> >> >> >>> display_ops and >> >> >> >>> >> manager_ops, and then you said the good solution is to pass >> >> >> >>> >> manager >> >> >> >>> >> and >> >> >> >>> >> display to each driver. At that time, I thought no matter how >> >> >> >>> >> the >> >> >> >>> callback >> >> >> >>> >> is called if the framework doesn't call callbacks of each >> >> >> >>> >> driver >> >> >> >>> >> with >> >> >> >>> ctx. >> >> >> >>> >> So I agreed. >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> It would have been nice if you had changed your mind >> >> >> >>> >>> *before* I >> >> >> >>> >>> reworked everything. At any rate, I think it's still the >> >> >> >>> >>> right >> >> >> >>> >>> thing >> >> >> >>> >>> to do. >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> Really sorry about that. And I will add new patch for it so >> >> >> >>> >> you >> >> >> >>> >> don't >> >> >> >>> need >> >> >> >>> >> to concern about that. >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> > I'm not sure but display_ops could be implemented in other >> >> >> >>> >>> > framework >> >> >> >>> >>> based >> >> >> >>> >>> > driver such as CDF based lcd panel driver. So if you pass >> >> >> >>> >>> > display - >> >> >> >>> it's >> >> >> >>> >>> > specific to exynos drm framework - into display_ops, the >> >> >> >>> >>> > other >> >> >> >>> framework >> >> >> >>> >>> > based driver should include specific exynos drm header. >> >> >> >>> >>> > >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> AFAIK, CDF will not land in its current separate-from-drm >> >> >> >>> >>> form, >> >> >> >>> >>> we >> >> >> >>> >>> don't need to worry about this. Furthermore, these ops >> >> >> >>> >>> should >> >> >> >>> >>> just >> >> >> >>> >>> go >> >> >> >>> >>> away and become drm_crtc/drm_encoder/drm_connector funcs >> >> >> >>> >>> anyways. >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> Can you assure the display_ops never implemented in other >> >> >> >>> >> framework >> >> >> >>> based >> >> >> >>> >> driver, not CDF? At any rate, I think all possibilities >> >> >> >>> >> should >> >> >> >>> >> be >> >> >> >>> opened. >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> > I don't think we should let an RFC framework make the code >> >> >> >>> > more >> >> >> >>> > complicated for unclear benefit. By removing manager/display >> >> >> >>> > entirely, >> >> >> >>> > we can get rid of a *lot* of other code that is basically just >> >> >> >>> > plumbing drm hooks (exynos_drm_connector is a good example). >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> I hacked this up today to prove it out. Check out the top 5 >> >> >> >>> commits >> >> >> >>> in >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> https://github.com/crseanpaul/exynos-drm-next/commits/linux-next-exynos- >> >> >> >>> staging. >> >> >> >>> It removes exynos_drm_connector in favor of just implementing >> >> >> >>> drm_connector directly. This same treatment should be done for >> >> >> >>> exynos_drm_encoder and exynos_drm_crtc, but I didn't get around >> >> >> >>> to >> >> >> >>> doing this. >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> As you can see, it cuts out a lot of code and removes an entire >> >> >> >>> abstraction layer. Much nicer :) >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It seems that you implements connector in each device driver. >> >> >> >> Can't >> >> >> >> they be >> >> >> >> combined as common spot, exynos_connector, again to avoid codes >> >> >> >> from >> >> >> >> duplicated? :) >> >> >> > >> >> >> > There's nothing of substance being duplicated. >> >> >> >> >> >> Not true. xxx_create_connector is duplicated. >> >> >> >> >> >> > In fact, by getting rid >> >> >> > of the exynos_drm_connector layer, we deleted 150 lines. If you >> >> >> > really >> >> >> > take a look at exynos_drm_connector, it's not doing anything >> >> >> > useful. >> >> >> >> >> >> No, That is for each driver has no any dependency of drm framework. >> >> >> >> >> >> > All it does is translate the drm callbacks into display callbacks, >> >> >> > so >> >> >> > I think it's much better to just implement the drm callbacks >> >> >> > directly. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> No, It has strongly dependency of drm framework. Assume that we >> >> >> implemented the drm callbacks directly, and then some features are >> >> >> added to drm framework, drm_connector side. At this time, we will >> >> >> have >> >> >> to take care of each device driver according to the change. That is >> >> >> really not good. Why device drivers should have dependency of drm >> >> >> framework? Just to reduce line counts? >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > You seem to miss the point here and elsewhere in the discussion. >> >> > drm/exynos is a drm driver, and as such it should use the drm >> >> > framework, >> >> >> >> Hm.. you seem to miss something. Exynos drm based drivers are based on >> >> exynos drm framework, not drm framework directly. So I mean that >> >> Exynos drm framework based drivers should include only Exynos drm >> >> headers, _not drm header_ directly. >> > >> > >> > Well, I think everyone sees that exynos is different. But my point still >> > remains: why is the exynos driver in drm/ if it wants to use a different >> > framework? Right now it is blocking work on a proper drm driver... >> > >> >> Noooooo. It's not to use a different framework. It's to use a wrapper >> instead. > > > Ok, if you want to call it a wrapper, then what is the point of doing this > wrapping given that it prevents a proper drm-style implementation? > I already commented. That is for only Exynos drm framework has dependency of drm framework directly, and Exynos drm based drivers include only Exynos drm headers. > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > especially if this reduces the line count and the code >> >> > complexity (as is the case for this patch series). If you don't want >> >> > to maintain a drm driver, it simply should be moved away from drm/, >> >> > and it should be replaced by a real drm driver in my opinion. >> >> >> >> So those drivers should be in drm/exynos. Isn't that you really mean >> >> those drivers should be driver/gpu/drm? >> > >> > >> > I don't understand this sentence, sorry. >> >> Sorry, again, you mean Exynos drm based drivers should be in >> drivers/gpu/drm, not drivers/gpu/drm/exynos? >> > Is the exynos drm useful in its current shape at all? My recommendation > would be to fork off a real drm driver in gpu/drm/exynos with the current > code as a base. > Yes as of now. of course, There could be a better way. However, I don't want for Exynos drm based drivers have dependency of drm framework directly. Thanks for your opinions. Inki Dae > Stéphane > > >> >> Thanks, >> Inki Dae >> >> > >> > Stéphane >> > >> > >> >> >> >> If so, That would really be >> >> horrible. :( >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> >> Please, know that only Exynos drm framework, _not device drivers_, has >> >> all dependencies of drm framework, and also I know that other ARM >> >> based drm drivers are using same way. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Inki Dae >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Stéphane >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > There are a bunch of real bugs that we've found as a result of >> >> >> > having >> >> >> > these abstraction layers. Take, for example, dpms. Before this >> >> >> > patchset, dpms for fimd was being tracked separately in fimd >> >> >> > driver, >> >> >> > exynos_drm_encoder, exynos_drm_crtc, and exynos_drm_connector. >> >> >> > Furthermore, during suspend, only fimd driver's dpms state was >> >> >> > updated, so the others were incorrect. There was also this weird >> >> >> > gymnastics that had to happen when dpms was changed in the encoder >> >> >> > since it had to walk up to the connector level to change its dpms >> >> >> > state. If fimd just directly implemented >> >> >> > drm_crtc/drm_encoder/drm_connector (before dp was moved in), this >> >> >> > problem wouldn't exist. The same goes for HDMI/mixer. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> That is a issue we should take care of by using the independent >> >> >> layer. >> >> >> Then, aren't you take care of that well with the re-factoring patch >> >> >> set? :) It seems that you are outside real point. >> >> >> >> >> >> > Take a look at exynos_drm_encoder.c in my tree >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > (https://github.com/crseanpaul/exynos-drm-next/blob/linux-next-exynos-staging/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_encoder.c), >> >> >> > what does it do that's useful to abstract? All that it does is >> >> >> > just >> >> >> > call display ops, it's completely useless. The same is true for >> >> >> > exynos_drm_connector, it's just dead weight. There is some useful >> >> >> > stuff in exynos_drm_crtc for page flipping, that would be better >> >> >> > served as a helper library, though. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> The abstraction layer you mentioned also means a common spot. >> >> >> >> Another one, you patch also makes each sub driver have strongly >> >> >> >> dependency >> >> >> >> of drm framework. So how we can support existing backlight and >> >> >> >> lcd >> >> >> >> class >> >> >> >> based lcd panel drivers if the connector is implemented in each >> >> >> >> device >> >> >> >> driver later? the drm header files should be included in >> >> >> >> drivers/video/backlight/xxx_lcd.c? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > drm_bridge or drm_panel seem like good candidates for this. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes, exynos_drm_display could be replaced with drm_panel later if >> >> >> the >> >> >> drm_panel can be merged to mainline. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> And, I will introduce a new framework to support existing lcd >> >> >> >> panel >> >> >> >> drivers >> >> >> >> and display bus drivers soon; as of now for Exynos drm, and the >> >> >> >> framework is >> >> >> >> being tested internally. With this framework, encoder and >> >> >> >> connector >> >> >> >> will be >> >> >> >> created when lcd panel or display bus driver such as eDP is >> >> >> >> probed: >> >> >> >> it >> >> >> >> doesn’t really need to create encoder and connector in advance if >> >> >> >> lcd >> >> >> >> panel >> >> >> >> or display bus driver isn't probed yet. Regardless of crtc, and >> >> >> >> encoder >> >> >> >> and >> >> >> >> connector creation order, when last one is created, crtc and >> >> >> >> connector >> >> >> >> will >> >> >> >> be connected each other. And exynos_drm_display could be >> >> >> >> implemented >> >> >> >> in >> >> >> >> other frameworks if we have common structure for display device >> >> >> >> driver. >> >> >> >> And >> >> >> >> also the framework will support lvds driver according to Linux >> >> >> >> device >> >> >> >> driver >> >> >> >> model. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I don't really follow what you're trying to do here, but I think >> >> >> > we >> >> >> > should be moving in the direction of fewer abstractions in the >> >> >> > exynos >> >> >> > driver, not more :) >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Not abstraction layer, just a bridge for connecting crtc and its >> >> >> corresponding encoder/connector, and lvds regardless of creation >> >> >> order, and for connecting drm connector and other framework based >> >> >> display ops such as drm_panel later. >> >> >> >> >> >> > Sean >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> Inki Dae >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Sean >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> > And another one, the patch 6 passes manager object to >> >> >> >>> >>> > manager_ops, >> >> >> >>> and >> >> >> >>> >>> for >> >> >> >>> >>> > this, you made the manager object to be set to driver >> >> >> >>> >>> > data; >> >> >> >>> >>> > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, &manager). That isn't >> >> >> >>> >>> > reasonable. >> >> >> >>> Generally, >> >> >> >>> >>> > driver_data would point to device driver's context object. >> >> >> >>> >>> > >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> I'm not sure why this isn't reasonable, but it's a moot >> >> >> >>> >>> point. >> >> >> >>> >>> The >> >> >> >>> >>> driver data is only used up until we get rid of the pm ops, >> >> >> >>> >>> it >> >> >> >>> >>> needn't >> >> >> >>> >>> be set at all once things go through dpms. >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> Generally, device drivers can call its own internal >> >> >> >>> >> functions, >> >> >> >>> >> and >> >> >> >>> >> they >> >> >> >>> will >> >> >> >>> >> call that functions with ctx. However, if you set manager to >> >> >> >>> driver_data >> >> >> >>> >> then that functions should be called with manager object and >> >> >> >>> >> also >> >> >> >>> internally >> >> >> >>> >> that functions should get ctx from the manager object. What >> >> >> >>> >> is >> >> >> >>> >> the >> >> >> >>> purpose >> >> >> >>> >> of manager? Do you think it's reasonable? >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> > So, to avoid setting the manager as the drvdata, we could >> >> >> >>> > implement >> >> >> >>> > something like fimd_dpms_ctx(ctx, mode) that takes ctx and the >> >> >> >>> > manager >> >> >> >>> > callback calls it fimd_dpms(mgr, mode) { ctx = mgr->ctx; >> >> >> >>> > fimd_dpms_ctx(ctx, mode); }. Alternatively, you can save a >> >> >> >>> > pointer >> >> >> >>> > to >> >> >> >>> > mgr in ctx, but that creates a circular link between the two. >> >> >> >>> > IMO, >> >> >> >>> > both of those solutions suck :) >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> > I'd much rather just set drvdata to the manager and call the >> >> >> >>> > hook >> >> >> >>> > directly. Like I said earlier, this is just a temporary step >> >> >> >>> > since >> >> >> >>> > we >> >> >> >>> > remove these pm ops later in the patch series. >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> > Sean >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> >> Anyway, I'd like to say really sorry about inconvenient >> >> >> >>> >> again. >> >> >> >>> >> So I >> >> >> >>> will fix >> >> >> >>> >> it. >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >>> >> Inki Dae >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> Sean >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> > Thanks, >> >> >> >>> >>> > Inki Dae >> >> >> >>> >>> > >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> >> > dri-devel mailing list >> >> >> > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >> >> >> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >> dri-devel mailing list >> >> >> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >> >> >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> > dri-devel mailing list >> >> > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >> >> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > dri-devel mailing list >> > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >
2013/10/22 Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com>: > 2013/10/17 Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>: >> This patch splits display and manager from subdrv. The result is that >> crtc functions can directly call into manager callbacks and encoder >> functions can directly call into display callbacks. This will allow >> us to remove the exynos_drm_hdmi shim and support mixer/hdmi & fimd/dp >> with common code. >> >> Signed-off-by: Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> >> --- >> >> Changes in v2: >> - Pass display into display_ops instead of context >> >> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_connector.c | 50 ++- >> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_core.c | 181 ++++++++--- >> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_crtc.c | 115 +++++-- >> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_crtc.h | 20 +- >> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_drv.c | 29 +- >> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_drv.h | 106 +++--- >> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_encoder.c | 258 ++------------- >> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_encoder.h | 18 +- >> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_fb.c | 4 +- >> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_fimd.c | 161 +++++---- >> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_hdmi.c | 449 -------------------------- > > Build error. it seems that you missed vidi module. Can you consider > vidi module also? > Sean, ping~~~ > Thanks, > Inki Dae > >> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_hdmi.h | 2 + >> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_plane.c | 15 +- >> 13 files changed, 466 insertions(+), 942 deletions(-) >> delete mode 100644 drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_hdmi.c >>
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:48 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: > 2013/10/23 Stéphane Marchesin <stephane.marchesin@gmail.com>: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: >>> >>> 2013/10/23 Stéphane Marchesin <stephane.marchesin@gmail.com>: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> 2013/10/23 Stéphane Marchesin <stephane.marchesin@gmail.com>: >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> 2013/10/22 Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>: >>> >> >> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> >>> >> >> > wrote: >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> >> >> >>> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] >>> >> >> >>> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 6:18 AM >>> >> >> >>> To: Inki Dae >>> >> >> >>> Cc: dri-devel; Dave Airlie; Tomasz Figa; Stéphane Marchesin >>> >> >> >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split >>> >> >> >>> manager/display/subdrv >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Sean Paul >>> >> >> >>> <seanpaul@chromium.org> >>> >> >> >>> wrote: >>> >> >> >>> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Inki Dae >>> >> >> >>> > <inki.dae@samsung.com> >>> >> >> >>> > wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> >> >> >>> >>> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] >>> >> >> >>> >>> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 11:37 PM >>> >> >> >>> >>> To: Inki Dae >>> >> >> >>> >>> Cc: dri-devel; Dave Airlie; Tomasz Figa; Stéphane Marchesin >>> >> >> >>> >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split >>> >> >> >>> >>> manager/display/subdrv >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Inki Dae >>> >> >> >>> >>> <inki.dae@samsung.com> >>> >> >> >> wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> -----Original Message----- >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:27 AM >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> To: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; inki.dae@samsung.com >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> Cc: airlied@linux.ie; tomasz.figa@gmail.com; >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> marcheu@chromium.org; >>> >> >> >>> Sean >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> Paul >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> Subject: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> manager/display/subdrv >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> This patch splits display and manager from subdrv. The >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> result >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> is >>> >> >> >>> that >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> crtc functions can directly call into manager callbacks >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> and >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> encoder >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> functions can directly call into display callbacks. This >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> will >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> allow >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> us to remove the exynos_drm_hdmi shim and support >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> mixer/hdmi >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> & >>> >> >> >>> fimd/dp >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> with common code. >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> Signed-off-by: Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> --- >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> Changes in v2: >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> - Pass display into display_ops instead of context >>> >> >> >>> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> >>> > Sorry but it seems like more reasonable to pass device >>> >> >> >>> >>> > object >>> >> >> >>> >>> > into >>> >> >> >>> >>> > display_ops and manager_ops. >>> >> >> >>> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> So you've changed your mind from when you said the >>> >> >> >>> >>> following? >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> manager->ops->xxx(manager, ...); >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> display->ops->xxx(display, ...); >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> Agree. >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> True. Before that, My comment was to pass device object into >>> >> >> >>> display_ops and >>> >> >> >>> >> manager_ops, and then you said the good solution is to pass >>> >> >> >>> >> manager >>> >> >> >>> >> and >>> >> >> >>> >> display to each driver. At that time, I thought no matter how >>> >> >> >>> >> the >>> >> >> >>> callback >>> >> >> >>> >> is called if the framework doesn't call callbacks of each >>> >> >> >>> >> driver >>> >> >> >>> >> with >>> >> >> >>> ctx. >>> >> >> >>> >> So I agreed. >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >>> It would have been nice if you had changed your mind >>> >> >> >>> >>> *before* I >>> >> >> >>> >>> reworked everything. At any rate, I think it's still the >>> >> >> >>> >>> right >>> >> >> >>> >>> thing >>> >> >> >>> >>> to do. >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Really sorry about that. And I will add new patch for it so >>> >> >> >>> >> you >>> >> >> >>> >> don't >>> >> >> >>> need >>> >> >> >>> >> to concern about that. >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> > I'm not sure but display_ops could be implemented in other >>> >> >> >>> >>> > framework >>> >> >> >>> >>> based >>> >> >> >>> >>> > driver such as CDF based lcd panel driver. So if you pass >>> >> >> >>> >>> > display - >>> >> >> >>> it's >>> >> >> >>> >>> > specific to exynos drm framework - into display_ops, the >>> >> >> >>> >>> > other >>> >> >> >>> framework >>> >> >> >>> >>> > based driver should include specific exynos drm header. >>> >> >> >>> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> AFAIK, CDF will not land in its current separate-from-drm >>> >> >> >>> >>> form, >>> >> >> >>> >>> we >>> >> >> >>> >>> don't need to worry about this. Furthermore, these ops >>> >> >> >>> >>> should >>> >> >> >>> >>> just >>> >> >> >>> >>> go >>> >> >> >>> >>> away and become drm_crtc/drm_encoder/drm_connector funcs >>> >> >> >>> >>> anyways. >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Can you assure the display_ops never implemented in other >>> >> >> >>> >> framework >>> >> >> >>> based >>> >> >> >>> >> driver, not CDF? At any rate, I think all possibilities >>> >> >> >>> >> should >>> >> >> >>> >> be >>> >> >> >>> opened. >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> > I don't think we should let an RFC framework make the code >>> >> >> >>> > more >>> >> >> >>> > complicated for unclear benefit. By removing manager/display >>> >> >> >>> > entirely, >>> >> >> >>> > we can get rid of a *lot* of other code that is basically just >>> >> >> >>> > plumbing drm hooks (exynos_drm_connector is a good example). >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> I hacked this up today to prove it out. Check out the top 5 >>> >> >> >>> commits >>> >> >> >>> in >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> https://github.com/crseanpaul/exynos-drm-next/commits/linux-next-exynos- >>> >> >> >>> staging. >>> >> >> >>> It removes exynos_drm_connector in favor of just implementing >>> >> >> >>> drm_connector directly. This same treatment should be done for >>> >> >> >>> exynos_drm_encoder and exynos_drm_crtc, but I didn't get around >>> >> >> >>> to >>> >> >> >>> doing this. >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> As you can see, it cuts out a lot of code and removes an entire >>> >> >> >>> abstraction layer. Much nicer :) >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> It seems that you implements connector in each device driver. >>> >> >> >> Can't >>> >> >> >> they be >>> >> >> >> combined as common spot, exynos_connector, again to avoid codes >>> >> >> >> from >>> >> >> >> duplicated? :) >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > There's nothing of substance being duplicated. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Not true. xxx_create_connector is duplicated. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > In fact, by getting rid >>> >> >> > of the exynos_drm_connector layer, we deleted 150 lines. If you >>> >> >> > really >>> >> >> > take a look at exynos_drm_connector, it's not doing anything >>> >> >> > useful. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> No, That is for each driver has no any dependency of drm framework. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > All it does is translate the drm callbacks into display callbacks, >>> >> >> > so >>> >> >> > I think it's much better to just implement the drm callbacks >>> >> >> > directly. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> No, It has strongly dependency of drm framework. Assume that we >>> >> >> implemented the drm callbacks directly, and then some features are >>> >> >> added to drm framework, drm_connector side. At this time, we will >>> >> >> have >>> >> >> to take care of each device driver according to the change. That is >>> >> >> really not good. Why device drivers should have dependency of drm >>> >> >> framework? Just to reduce line counts? >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > You seem to miss the point here and elsewhere in the discussion. >>> >> > drm/exynos is a drm driver, and as such it should use the drm >>> >> > framework, >>> >> >>> >> Hm.. you seem to miss something. Exynos drm based drivers are based on >>> >> exynos drm framework, not drm framework directly. So I mean that >>> >> Exynos drm framework based drivers should include only Exynos drm >>> >> headers, _not drm header_ directly. >>> > >>> > >>> > Well, I think everyone sees that exynos is different. But my point still >>> > remains: why is the exynos driver in drm/ if it wants to use a different >>> > framework? Right now it is blocking work on a proper drm driver... >>> > >>> >>> Noooooo. It's not to use a different framework. It's to use a wrapper >>> instead. >> >> >> Ok, if you want to call it a wrapper, then what is the point of doing this >> wrapping given that it prevents a proper drm-style implementation? >> > > I already commented. That is for only Exynos drm framework has > dependency of drm framework directly, and Exynos drm based drivers > include only Exynos drm headers. > >> >>> >>> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> > especially if this reduces the line count and the code >>> >> > complexity (as is the case for this patch series). If you don't want >>> >> > to maintain a drm driver, it simply should be moved away from drm/, >>> >> > and it should be replaced by a real drm driver in my opinion. >>> >> >>> >> So those drivers should be in drm/exynos. Isn't that you really mean >>> >> those drivers should be driver/gpu/drm? >>> > >>> > >>> > I don't understand this sentence, sorry. >>> >>> Sorry, again, you mean Exynos drm based drivers should be in >>> drivers/gpu/drm, not drivers/gpu/drm/exynos? >>> >> Is the exynos drm useful in its current shape at all? My recommendation >> would be to fork off a real drm driver in gpu/drm/exynos with the current >> code as a base. >> > > Yes as of now. of course, There could be a better way. However, I > don't want for Exynos drm based drivers have dependency of drm > framework directly. > Just to satisfy my curiosity, do you actually have something that uses these drivers outside of drm? So I think we've reached somewhat of an impasse. I'd like to move the driver towards a proper drm driver (ie: no exynos framework/wrapper/whatever), you'd like to keep things separate. So should we create a new exynos driver drivers/drm/gpu/exynos5 to house the drm driver? Sean > Thanks for your opinions. > Inki Dae > >> Stéphane >> >> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Inki Dae >>> >>> > >>> > Stéphane >>> > >>> > >>> >> >>> >> If so, That would really be >>> >> horrible. :( >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> >> >>> >> Please, know that only Exynos drm framework, _not device drivers_, has >>> >> all dependencies of drm framework, and also I know that other ARM >>> >> based drm drivers are using same way. >>> >> >>> >> Thanks, >>> >> Inki Dae >>> >> >>> >> > >>> >> > Stéphane >>> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > There are a bunch of real bugs that we've found as a result of >>> >> >> > having >>> >> >> > these abstraction layers. Take, for example, dpms. Before this >>> >> >> > patchset, dpms for fimd was being tracked separately in fimd >>> >> >> > driver, >>> >> >> > exynos_drm_encoder, exynos_drm_crtc, and exynos_drm_connector. >>> >> >> > Furthermore, during suspend, only fimd driver's dpms state was >>> >> >> > updated, so the others were incorrect. There was also this weird >>> >> >> > gymnastics that had to happen when dpms was changed in the encoder >>> >> >> > since it had to walk up to the connector level to change its dpms >>> >> >> > state. If fimd just directly implemented >>> >> >> > drm_crtc/drm_encoder/drm_connector (before dp was moved in), this >>> >> >> > problem wouldn't exist. The same goes for HDMI/mixer. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> That is a issue we should take care of by using the independent >>> >> >> layer. >>> >> >> Then, aren't you take care of that well with the re-factoring patch >>> >> >> set? :) It seems that you are outside real point. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > Take a look at exynos_drm_encoder.c in my tree >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > (https://github.com/crseanpaul/exynos-drm-next/blob/linux-next-exynos-staging/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_encoder.c), >>> >> >> > what does it do that's useful to abstract? All that it does is >>> >> >> > just >>> >> >> > call display ops, it's completely useless. The same is true for >>> >> >> > exynos_drm_connector, it's just dead weight. There is some useful >>> >> >> > stuff in exynos_drm_crtc for page flipping, that would be better >>> >> >> > served as a helper library, though. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> The abstraction layer you mentioned also means a common spot. >>> >> >> >> Another one, you patch also makes each sub driver have strongly >>> >> >> >> dependency >>> >> >> >> of drm framework. So how we can support existing backlight and >>> >> >> >> lcd >>> >> >> >> class >>> >> >> >> based lcd panel drivers if the connector is implemented in each >>> >> >> >> device >>> >> >> >> driver later? the drm header files should be included in >>> >> >> >> drivers/video/backlight/xxx_lcd.c? >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > drm_bridge or drm_panel seem like good candidates for this. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Yes, exynos_drm_display could be replaced with drm_panel later if >>> >> >> the >>> >> >> drm_panel can be merged to mainline. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> And, I will introduce a new framework to support existing lcd >>> >> >> >> panel >>> >> >> >> drivers >>> >> >> >> and display bus drivers soon; as of now for Exynos drm, and the >>> >> >> >> framework is >>> >> >> >> being tested internally. With this framework, encoder and >>> >> >> >> connector >>> >> >> >> will be >>> >> >> >> created when lcd panel or display bus driver such as eDP is >>> >> >> >> probed: >>> >> >> >> it >>> >> >> >> doesn’t really need to create encoder and connector in advance if >>> >> >> >> lcd >>> >> >> >> panel >>> >> >> >> or display bus driver isn't probed yet. Regardless of crtc, and >>> >> >> >> encoder >>> >> >> >> and >>> >> >> >> connector creation order, when last one is created, crtc and >>> >> >> >> connector >>> >> >> >> will >>> >> >> >> be connected each other. And exynos_drm_display could be >>> >> >> >> implemented >>> >> >> >> in >>> >> >> >> other frameworks if we have common structure for display device >>> >> >> >> driver. >>> >> >> >> And >>> >> >> >> also the framework will support lvds driver according to Linux >>> >> >> >> device >>> >> >> >> driver >>> >> >> >> model. >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > I don't really follow what you're trying to do here, but I think >>> >> >> > we >>> >> >> > should be moving in the direction of fewer abstractions in the >>> >> >> > exynos >>> >> >> > driver, not more :) >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Not abstraction layer, just a bridge for connecting crtc and its >>> >> >> corresponding encoder/connector, and lvds regardless of creation >>> >> >> order, and for connecting drm connector and other framework based >>> >> >> display ops such as drm_panel later. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > Sean >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> Thanks, >>> >> >> >> Inki Dae >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Sean >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> > And another one, the patch 6 passes manager object to >>> >> >> >>> >>> > manager_ops, >>> >> >> >>> and >>> >> >> >>> >>> for >>> >> >> >>> >>> > this, you made the manager object to be set to driver >>> >> >> >>> >>> > data; >>> >> >> >>> >>> > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, &manager). That isn't >>> >> >> >>> >>> > reasonable. >>> >> >> >>> Generally, >>> >> >> >>> >>> > driver_data would point to device driver's context object. >>> >> >> >>> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> I'm not sure why this isn't reasonable, but it's a moot >>> >> >> >>> >>> point. >>> >> >> >>> >>> The >>> >> >> >>> >>> driver data is only used up until we get rid of the pm ops, >>> >> >> >>> >>> it >>> >> >> >>> >>> needn't >>> >> >> >>> >>> be set at all once things go through dpms. >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Generally, device drivers can call its own internal >>> >> >> >>> >> functions, >>> >> >> >>> >> and >>> >> >> >>> >> they >>> >> >> >>> will >>> >> >> >>> >> call that functions with ctx. However, if you set manager to >>> >> >> >>> driver_data >>> >> >> >>> >> then that functions should be called with manager object and >>> >> >> >>> >> also >>> >> >> >>> internally >>> >> >> >>> >> that functions should get ctx from the manager object. What >>> >> >> >>> >> is >>> >> >> >>> >> the >>> >> >> >>> purpose >>> >> >> >>> >> of manager? Do you think it's reasonable? >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> > So, to avoid setting the manager as the drvdata, we could >>> >> >> >>> > implement >>> >> >> >>> > something like fimd_dpms_ctx(ctx, mode) that takes ctx and the >>> >> >> >>> > manager >>> >> >> >>> > callback calls it fimd_dpms(mgr, mode) { ctx = mgr->ctx; >>> >> >> >>> > fimd_dpms_ctx(ctx, mode); }. Alternatively, you can save a >>> >> >> >>> > pointer >>> >> >> >>> > to >>> >> >> >>> > mgr in ctx, but that creates a circular link between the two. >>> >> >> >>> > IMO, >>> >> >> >>> > both of those solutions suck :) >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> > I'd much rather just set drvdata to the manager and call the >>> >> >> >>> > hook >>> >> >> >>> > directly. Like I said earlier, this is just a temporary step >>> >> >> >>> > since >>> >> >> >>> > we >>> >> >> >>> > remove these pm ops later in the patch series. >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> > Sean >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> >> Anyway, I'd like to say really sorry about inconvenient >>> >> >> >>> >> again. >>> >> >> >>> >> So I >>> >> >> >>> will fix >>> >> >> >>> >> it. >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Thanks, >>> >> >> >>> >> Inki Dae >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >>> Sean >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> > Thanks, >>> >> >> >>> >>> > Inki Dae >>> >> >> >>> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >>> >> >> > dri-devel mailing list >>> >> >> > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >>> >> >> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> >> dri-devel mailing list >>> >> >> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >>> >> >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > _______________________________________________ >>> >> > dri-devel mailing list >>> >> > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >>> >> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >>> >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > dri-devel mailing list >>> > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >>> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >>> > >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dri-devel mailing list >> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >> > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
2013/10/23 Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>: > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:48 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: >> 2013/10/23 Stéphane Marchesin <stephane.marchesin@gmail.com>: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> 2013/10/23 Stéphane Marchesin <stephane.marchesin@gmail.com>: >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> 2013/10/23 Stéphane Marchesin <stephane.marchesin@gmail.com>: >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> >>>> >> > wrote: >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> 2013/10/22 Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>: >>>> >> >> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> >>>> >> >> > wrote: >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>>> >> >> >>> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] >>>> >> >> >>> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 6:18 AM >>>> >> >> >>> To: Inki Dae >>>> >> >> >>> Cc: dri-devel; Dave Airlie; Tomasz Figa; Stéphane Marchesin >>>> >> >> >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split >>>> >> >> >>> manager/display/subdrv >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Sean Paul >>>> >> >> >>> <seanpaul@chromium.org> >>>> >> >> >>> wrote: >>>> >> >> >>> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Inki Dae >>>> >> >> >>> > <inki.dae@samsung.com> >>>> >> >> >>> > wrote: >>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>>> >> >> >>> >>> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] >>>> >> >> >>> >>> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 11:37 PM >>>> >> >> >>> >>> To: Inki Dae >>>> >> >> >>> >>> Cc: dri-devel; Dave Airlie; Tomasz Figa; Stéphane Marchesin >>>> >> >> >>> >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split >>>> >> >> >>> >>> manager/display/subdrv >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Inki Dae >>>> >> >> >>> >>> <inki.dae@samsung.com> >>>> >> >> >> wrote: >>>> >> >> >>> >>> > >>>> >> >> >>> >>> > >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> -----Original Message----- >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:27 AM >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> To: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; inki.dae@samsung.com >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> Cc: airlied@linux.ie; tomasz.figa@gmail.com; >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> marcheu@chromium.org; >>>> >> >> >>> Sean >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> Paul >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> Subject: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> manager/display/subdrv >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> This patch splits display and manager from subdrv. The >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> result >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> is >>>> >> >> >>> that >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> crtc functions can directly call into manager callbacks >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> and >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> encoder >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> functions can directly call into display callbacks. This >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> will >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> allow >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> us to remove the exynos_drm_hdmi shim and support >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> mixer/hdmi >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> & >>>> >> >> >>> fimd/dp >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> with common code. >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> Signed-off-by: Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> --- >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> Changes in v2: >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> - Pass display into display_ops instead of context >>>> >> >> >>> >>> > >>>> >> >> >>> >>> > Sorry but it seems like more reasonable to pass device >>>> >> >> >>> >>> > object >>>> >> >> >>> >>> > into >>>> >> >> >>> >>> > display_ops and manager_ops. >>>> >> >> >>> >>> > >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>> So you've changed your mind from when you said the >>>> >> >> >>> >>> following? >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> manager->ops->xxx(manager, ...); >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> display->ops->xxx(display, ...); >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> Agree. >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >> >>> >> True. Before that, My comment was to pass device object into >>>> >> >> >>> display_ops and >>>> >> >> >>> >> manager_ops, and then you said the good solution is to pass >>>> >> >> >>> >> manager >>>> >> >> >>> >> and >>>> >> >> >>> >> display to each driver. At that time, I thought no matter how >>>> >> >> >>> >> the >>>> >> >> >>> callback >>>> >> >> >>> >> is called if the framework doesn't call callbacks of each >>>> >> >> >>> >> driver >>>> >> >> >>> >> with >>>> >> >> >>> ctx. >>>> >> >> >>> >> So I agreed. >>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >> >>> >>> It would have been nice if you had changed your mind >>>> >> >> >>> >>> *before* I >>>> >> >> >>> >>> reworked everything. At any rate, I think it's still the >>>> >> >> >>> >>> right >>>> >> >> >>> >>> thing >>>> >> >> >>> >>> to do. >>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >> >>> >> Really sorry about that. And I will add new patch for it so >>>> >> >> >>> >> you >>>> >> >> >>> >> don't >>>> >> >> >>> need >>>> >> >> >>> >> to concern about that. >>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>> > I'm not sure but display_ops could be implemented in other >>>> >> >> >>> >>> > framework >>>> >> >> >>> >>> based >>>> >> >> >>> >>> > driver such as CDF based lcd panel driver. So if you pass >>>> >> >> >>> >>> > display - >>>> >> >> >>> it's >>>> >> >> >>> >>> > specific to exynos drm framework - into display_ops, the >>>> >> >> >>> >>> > other >>>> >> >> >>> framework >>>> >> >> >>> >>> > based driver should include specific exynos drm header. >>>> >> >> >>> >>> > >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>> AFAIK, CDF will not land in its current separate-from-drm >>>> >> >> >>> >>> form, >>>> >> >> >>> >>> we >>>> >> >> >>> >>> don't need to worry about this. Furthermore, these ops >>>> >> >> >>> >>> should >>>> >> >> >>> >>> just >>>> >> >> >>> >>> go >>>> >> >> >>> >>> away and become drm_crtc/drm_encoder/drm_connector funcs >>>> >> >> >>> >>> anyways. >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >> >>> >> Can you assure the display_ops never implemented in other >>>> >> >> >>> >> framework >>>> >> >> >>> based >>>> >> >> >>> >> driver, not CDF? At any rate, I think all possibilities >>>> >> >> >>> >> should >>>> >> >> >>> >> be >>>> >> >> >>> opened. >>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >> >>> > >>>> >> >> >>> > I don't think we should let an RFC framework make the code >>>> >> >> >>> > more >>>> >> >> >>> > complicated for unclear benefit. By removing manager/display >>>> >> >> >>> > entirely, >>>> >> >> >>> > we can get rid of a *lot* of other code that is basically just >>>> >> >> >>> > plumbing drm hooks (exynos_drm_connector is a good example). >>>> >> >> >>> > >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> I hacked this up today to prove it out. Check out the top 5 >>>> >> >> >>> commits >>>> >> >> >>> in >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> https://github.com/crseanpaul/exynos-drm-next/commits/linux-next-exynos- >>>> >> >> >>> staging. >>>> >> >> >>> It removes exynos_drm_connector in favor of just implementing >>>> >> >> >>> drm_connector directly. This same treatment should be done for >>>> >> >> >>> exynos_drm_encoder and exynos_drm_crtc, but I didn't get around >>>> >> >> >>> to >>>> >> >> >>> doing this. >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> As you can see, it cuts out a lot of code and removes an entire >>>> >> >> >>> abstraction layer. Much nicer :) >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> It seems that you implements connector in each device driver. >>>> >> >> >> Can't >>>> >> >> >> they be >>>> >> >> >> combined as common spot, exynos_connector, again to avoid codes >>>> >> >> >> from >>>> >> >> >> duplicated? :) >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> > There's nothing of substance being duplicated. >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> Not true. xxx_create_connector is duplicated. >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> > In fact, by getting rid >>>> >> >> > of the exynos_drm_connector layer, we deleted 150 lines. If you >>>> >> >> > really >>>> >> >> > take a look at exynos_drm_connector, it's not doing anything >>>> >> >> > useful. >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> No, That is for each driver has no any dependency of drm framework. >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> > All it does is translate the drm callbacks into display callbacks, >>>> >> >> > so >>>> >> >> > I think it's much better to just implement the drm callbacks >>>> >> >> > directly. >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> No, It has strongly dependency of drm framework. Assume that we >>>> >> >> implemented the drm callbacks directly, and then some features are >>>> >> >> added to drm framework, drm_connector side. At this time, we will >>>> >> >> have >>>> >> >> to take care of each device driver according to the change. That is >>>> >> >> really not good. Why device drivers should have dependency of drm >>>> >> >> framework? Just to reduce line counts? >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > You seem to miss the point here and elsewhere in the discussion. >>>> >> > drm/exynos is a drm driver, and as such it should use the drm >>>> >> > framework, >>>> >> >>>> >> Hm.. you seem to miss something. Exynos drm based drivers are based on >>>> >> exynos drm framework, not drm framework directly. So I mean that >>>> >> Exynos drm framework based drivers should include only Exynos drm >>>> >> headers, _not drm header_ directly. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Well, I think everyone sees that exynos is different. But my point still >>>> > remains: why is the exynos driver in drm/ if it wants to use a different >>>> > framework? Right now it is blocking work on a proper drm driver... >>>> > >>>> >>>> Noooooo. It's not to use a different framework. It's to use a wrapper >>>> instead. >>> >>> >>> Ok, if you want to call it a wrapper, then what is the point of doing this >>> wrapping given that it prevents a proper drm-style implementation? >>> >> >> I already commented. That is for only Exynos drm framework has >> dependency of drm framework directly, and Exynos drm based drivers >> include only Exynos drm headers. >> >>> >>>> >>>> > >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> > especially if this reduces the line count and the code >>>> >> > complexity (as is the case for this patch series). If you don't want >>>> >> > to maintain a drm driver, it simply should be moved away from drm/, >>>> >> > and it should be replaced by a real drm driver in my opinion. >>>> >> >>>> >> So those drivers should be in drm/exynos. Isn't that you really mean >>>> >> those drivers should be driver/gpu/drm? >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > I don't understand this sentence, sorry. >>>> >>>> Sorry, again, you mean Exynos drm based drivers should be in >>>> drivers/gpu/drm, not drivers/gpu/drm/exynos? >>>> >>> Is the exynos drm useful in its current shape at all? My recommendation >>> would be to fork off a real drm driver in gpu/drm/exynos with the current >>> code as a base. >>> >> >> Yes as of now. of course, There could be a better way. However, I >> don't want for Exynos drm based drivers have dependency of drm >> framework directly. >> > > Just to satisfy my curiosity, do you actually have something that uses > these drivers outside of drm? > Never no. > So I think we've reached somewhat of an impasse. I'd like to move the > driver towards a proper drm driver (ie: no exynos > framework/wrapper/whatever), you'd like to keep things separate. So > should we create a new exynos driver drivers/drm/gpu/exynos5 to house > the drm driver? Did you check out other drm drivers using similar way? And If so, the other drm framework based drivers should be moved? What is the problem that Exynos drm based drivers include only Exynos drm headers, not drm framework header directly? Is that really a big issue? I _cannot_ understand your behavior. Anyway, if there are any reasons that Exynos drm based drivers should necessary include drm framework header directly, I will agree it. Thanks, Inki Dae > > Sean > > >> Thanks for your opinions. >> Inki Dae >> >>> Stéphane >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Inki Dae >>>> >>>> > >>>> > Stéphane >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >> >>>> >> If so, That would really be >>>> >> horrible. :( >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >> >>>> >> Please, know that only Exynos drm framework, _not device drivers_, has >>>> >> all dependencies of drm framework, and also I know that other ARM >>>> >> based drm drivers are using same way. >>>> >> >>>> >> Thanks, >>>> >> Inki Dae >>>> >> >>>> >> > >>>> >> > Stéphane >>>> >> > >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> > There are a bunch of real bugs that we've found as a result of >>>> >> >> > having >>>> >> >> > these abstraction layers. Take, for example, dpms. Before this >>>> >> >> > patchset, dpms for fimd was being tracked separately in fimd >>>> >> >> > driver, >>>> >> >> > exynos_drm_encoder, exynos_drm_crtc, and exynos_drm_connector. >>>> >> >> > Furthermore, during suspend, only fimd driver's dpms state was >>>> >> >> > updated, so the others were incorrect. There was also this weird >>>> >> >> > gymnastics that had to happen when dpms was changed in the encoder >>>> >> >> > since it had to walk up to the connector level to change its dpms >>>> >> >> > state. If fimd just directly implemented >>>> >> >> > drm_crtc/drm_encoder/drm_connector (before dp was moved in), this >>>> >> >> > problem wouldn't exist. The same goes for HDMI/mixer. >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> That is a issue we should take care of by using the independent >>>> >> >> layer. >>>> >> >> Then, aren't you take care of that well with the re-factoring patch >>>> >> >> set? :) It seems that you are outside real point. >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> > Take a look at exynos_drm_encoder.c in my tree >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> > (https://github.com/crseanpaul/exynos-drm-next/blob/linux-next-exynos-staging/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_encoder.c), >>>> >> >> > what does it do that's useful to abstract? All that it does is >>>> >> >> > just >>>> >> >> > call display ops, it's completely useless. The same is true for >>>> >> >> > exynos_drm_connector, it's just dead weight. There is some useful >>>> >> >> > stuff in exynos_drm_crtc for page flipping, that would be better >>>> >> >> > served as a helper library, though. >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> >> The abstraction layer you mentioned also means a common spot. >>>> >> >> >> Another one, you patch also makes each sub driver have strongly >>>> >> >> >> dependency >>>> >> >> >> of drm framework. So how we can support existing backlight and >>>> >> >> >> lcd >>>> >> >> >> class >>>> >> >> >> based lcd panel drivers if the connector is implemented in each >>>> >> >> >> device >>>> >> >> >> driver later? the drm header files should be included in >>>> >> >> >> drivers/video/backlight/xxx_lcd.c? >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> > drm_bridge or drm_panel seem like good candidates for this. >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> Yes, exynos_drm_display could be replaced with drm_panel later if >>>> >> >> the >>>> >> >> drm_panel can be merged to mainline. >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> >> And, I will introduce a new framework to support existing lcd >>>> >> >> >> panel >>>> >> >> >> drivers >>>> >> >> >> and display bus drivers soon; as of now for Exynos drm, and the >>>> >> >> >> framework is >>>> >> >> >> being tested internally. With this framework, encoder and >>>> >> >> >> connector >>>> >> >> >> will be >>>> >> >> >> created when lcd panel or display bus driver such as eDP is >>>> >> >> >> probed: >>>> >> >> >> it >>>> >> >> >> doesn’t really need to create encoder and connector in advance if >>>> >> >> >> lcd >>>> >> >> >> panel >>>> >> >> >> or display bus driver isn't probed yet. Regardless of crtc, and >>>> >> >> >> encoder >>>> >> >> >> and >>>> >> >> >> connector creation order, when last one is created, crtc and >>>> >> >> >> connector >>>> >> >> >> will >>>> >> >> >> be connected each other. And exynos_drm_display could be >>>> >> >> >> implemented >>>> >> >> >> in >>>> >> >> >> other frameworks if we have common structure for display device >>>> >> >> >> driver. >>>> >> >> >> And >>>> >> >> >> also the framework will support lvds driver according to Linux >>>> >> >> >> device >>>> >> >> >> driver >>>> >> >> >> model. >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> > I don't really follow what you're trying to do here, but I think >>>> >> >> > we >>>> >> >> > should be moving in the direction of fewer abstractions in the >>>> >> >> > exynos >>>> >> >> > driver, not more :) >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> Not abstraction layer, just a bridge for connecting crtc and its >>>> >> >> corresponding encoder/connector, and lvds regardless of creation >>>> >> >> order, and for connecting drm connector and other framework based >>>> >> >> display ops such as drm_panel later. >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> > Sean >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> >> Thanks, >>>> >> >> >> Inki Dae >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>> Sean >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>> > And another one, the patch 6 passes manager object to >>>> >> >> >>> >>> > manager_ops, >>>> >> >> >>> and >>>> >> >> >>> >>> for >>>> >> >> >>> >>> > this, you made the manager object to be set to driver >>>> >> >> >>> >>> > data; >>>> >> >> >>> >>> > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, &manager). That isn't >>>> >> >> >>> >>> > reasonable. >>>> >> >> >>> Generally, >>>> >> >> >>> >>> > driver_data would point to device driver's context object. >>>> >> >> >>> >>> > >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>> I'm not sure why this isn't reasonable, but it's a moot >>>> >> >> >>> >>> point. >>>> >> >> >>> >>> The >>>> >> >> >>> >>> driver data is only used up until we get rid of the pm ops, >>>> >> >> >>> >>> it >>>> >> >> >>> >>> needn't >>>> >> >> >>> >>> be set at all once things go through dpms. >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >> >>> >> Generally, device drivers can call its own internal >>>> >> >> >>> >> functions, >>>> >> >> >>> >> and >>>> >> >> >>> >> they >>>> >> >> >>> will >>>> >> >> >>> >> call that functions with ctx. However, if you set manager to >>>> >> >> >>> driver_data >>>> >> >> >>> >> then that functions should be called with manager object and >>>> >> >> >>> >> also >>>> >> >> >>> internally >>>> >> >> >>> >> that functions should get ctx from the manager object. What >>>> >> >> >>> >> is >>>> >> >> >>> >> the >>>> >> >> >>> purpose >>>> >> >> >>> >> of manager? Do you think it's reasonable? >>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >> >>> > >>>> >> >> >>> > So, to avoid setting the manager as the drvdata, we could >>>> >> >> >>> > implement >>>> >> >> >>> > something like fimd_dpms_ctx(ctx, mode) that takes ctx and the >>>> >> >> >>> > manager >>>> >> >> >>> > callback calls it fimd_dpms(mgr, mode) { ctx = mgr->ctx; >>>> >> >> >>> > fimd_dpms_ctx(ctx, mode); }. Alternatively, you can save a >>>> >> >> >>> > pointer >>>> >> >> >>> > to >>>> >> >> >>> > mgr in ctx, but that creates a circular link between the two. >>>> >> >> >>> > IMO, >>>> >> >> >>> > both of those solutions suck :) >>>> >> >> >>> > >>>> >> >> >>> > I'd much rather just set drvdata to the manager and call the >>>> >> >> >>> > hook >>>> >> >> >>> > directly. Like I said earlier, this is just a temporary step >>>> >> >> >>> > since >>>> >> >> >>> > we >>>> >> >> >>> > remove these pm ops later in the patch series. >>>> >> >> >>> > >>>> >> >> >>> > Sean >>>> >> >> >>> > >>>> >> >> >>> > >>>> >> >> >>> >> Anyway, I'd like to say really sorry about inconvenient >>>> >> >> >>> >> again. >>>> >> >> >>> >> So I >>>> >> >> >>> will fix >>>> >> >> >>> >> it. >>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >> >>> >> Thanks, >>>> >> >> >>> >> Inki Dae >>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >> >>> >>> Sean >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>> > Thanks, >>>> >> >> >>> >>> > Inki Dae >>>> >> >> >>> >>> > >>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >>>> >> >> > dri-devel mailing list >>>> >> >> > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >>>> >> >> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >>>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >>>> >> >> dri-devel mailing list >>>> >> >> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >>>> >> >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > _______________________________________________ >>>> >> > dri-devel mailing list >>>> >> > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >>>> >> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >>>> >> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > dri-devel mailing list >>>> > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >>>> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >>>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> dri-devel mailing list >>> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> dri-devel mailing list >> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:42 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: > 2013/10/23 Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>: >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:48 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: >>> 2013/10/23 Stéphane Marchesin <stephane.marchesin@gmail.com>: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 2013/10/23 Stéphane Marchesin <stephane.marchesin@gmail.com>: >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> 2013/10/23 Stéphane Marchesin <stephane.marchesin@gmail.com>: >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> >>>>> >> > wrote: >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> 2013/10/22 Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>: >>>>> >> >> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> >>>>> >> >> > wrote: >>>>> >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> >> >> >>> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] >>>>> >> >> >>> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 6:18 AM >>>>> >> >> >>> To: Inki Dae >>>>> >> >> >>> Cc: dri-devel; Dave Airlie; Tomasz Figa; Stéphane Marchesin >>>>> >> >> >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split >>>>> >> >> >>> manager/display/subdrv >>>>> >> >> >>> >>>>> >> >> >>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Sean Paul >>>>> >> >> >>> <seanpaul@chromium.org> >>>>> >> >> >>> wrote: >>>>> >> >> >>> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Inki Dae >>>>> >> >> >>> > <inki.dae@samsung.com> >>>>> >> >> >>> > wrote: >>>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 11:37 PM >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> To: Inki Dae >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> Cc: dri-devel; Dave Airlie; Tomasz Figa; Stéphane Marchesin >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> manager/display/subdrv >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Inki Dae >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> <inki.dae@samsung.com> >>>>> >> >> >> wrote: >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> -----Original Message----- >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:27 AM >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> To: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; inki.dae@samsung.com >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> Cc: airlied@linux.ie; tomasz.figa@gmail.com; >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> marcheu@chromium.org; >>>>> >> >> >>> Sean >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> Paul >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> Subject: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> manager/display/subdrv >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> This patch splits display and manager from subdrv. The >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> result >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> is >>>>> >> >> >>> that >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> crtc functions can directly call into manager callbacks >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> and >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> encoder >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> functions can directly call into display callbacks. This >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> will >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> allow >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> us to remove the exynos_drm_hdmi shim and support >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> mixer/hdmi >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> & >>>>> >> >> >>> fimd/dp >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> with common code. >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> Signed-off-by: Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> --- >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> Changes in v2: >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> - Pass display into display_ops instead of context >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > Sorry but it seems like more reasonable to pass device >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > object >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > into >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > display_ops and manager_ops. >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> So you've changed your mind from when you said the >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> following? >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> manager->ops->xxx(manager, ...); >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> display->ops->xxx(display, ...); >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> Agree. >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >> >>> >> True. Before that, My comment was to pass device object into >>>>> >> >> >>> display_ops and >>>>> >> >> >>> >> manager_ops, and then you said the good solution is to pass >>>>> >> >> >>> >> manager >>>>> >> >> >>> >> and >>>>> >> >> >>> >> display to each driver. At that time, I thought no matter how >>>>> >> >> >>> >> the >>>>> >> >> >>> callback >>>>> >> >> >>> >> is called if the framework doesn't call callbacks of each >>>>> >> >> >>> >> driver >>>>> >> >> >>> >> with >>>>> >> >> >>> ctx. >>>>> >> >> >>> >> So I agreed. >>>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> It would have been nice if you had changed your mind >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> *before* I >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> reworked everything. At any rate, I think it's still the >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> right >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> thing >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> to do. >>>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >> >>> >> Really sorry about that. And I will add new patch for it so >>>>> >> >> >>> >> you >>>>> >> >> >>> >> don't >>>>> >> >> >>> need >>>>> >> >> >>> >> to concern about that. >>>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > I'm not sure but display_ops could be implemented in other >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > framework >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> based >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > driver such as CDF based lcd panel driver. So if you pass >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > display - >>>>> >> >> >>> it's >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > specific to exynos drm framework - into display_ops, the >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > other >>>>> >> >> >>> framework >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > based driver should include specific exynos drm header. >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> AFAIK, CDF will not land in its current separate-from-drm >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> form, >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> we >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> don't need to worry about this. Furthermore, these ops >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> should >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> just >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> go >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> away and become drm_crtc/drm_encoder/drm_connector funcs >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> anyways. >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >> >>> >> Can you assure the display_ops never implemented in other >>>>> >> >> >>> >> framework >>>>> >> >> >>> based >>>>> >> >> >>> >> driver, not CDF? At any rate, I think all possibilities >>>>> >> >> >>> >> should >>>>> >> >> >>> >> be >>>>> >> >> >>> opened. >>>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >> >>> > >>>>> >> >> >>> > I don't think we should let an RFC framework make the code >>>>> >> >> >>> > more >>>>> >> >> >>> > complicated for unclear benefit. By removing manager/display >>>>> >> >> >>> > entirely, >>>>> >> >> >>> > we can get rid of a *lot* of other code that is basically just >>>>> >> >> >>> > plumbing drm hooks (exynos_drm_connector is a good example). >>>>> >> >> >>> > >>>>> >> >> >>> >>>>> >> >> >>> I hacked this up today to prove it out. Check out the top 5 >>>>> >> >> >>> commits >>>>> >> >> >>> in >>>>> >> >> >>> >>>>> >> >> >>> >>>>> >> >> >>> >>>>> >> >> >>> https://github.com/crseanpaul/exynos-drm-next/commits/linux-next-exynos- >>>>> >> >> >>> staging. >>>>> >> >> >>> It removes exynos_drm_connector in favor of just implementing >>>>> >> >> >>> drm_connector directly. This same treatment should be done for >>>>> >> >> >>> exynos_drm_encoder and exynos_drm_crtc, but I didn't get around >>>>> >> >> >>> to >>>>> >> >> >>> doing this. >>>>> >> >> >>> >>>>> >> >> >>> As you can see, it cuts out a lot of code and removes an entire >>>>> >> >> >>> abstraction layer. Much nicer :) >>>>> >> >> >>> >>>>> >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >> It seems that you implements connector in each device driver. >>>>> >> >> >> Can't >>>>> >> >> >> they be >>>>> >> >> >> combined as common spot, exynos_connector, again to avoid codes >>>>> >> >> >> from >>>>> >> >> >> duplicated? :) >>>>> >> >> > >>>>> >> >> > There's nothing of substance being duplicated. >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> Not true. xxx_create_connector is duplicated. >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > In fact, by getting rid >>>>> >> >> > of the exynos_drm_connector layer, we deleted 150 lines. If you >>>>> >> >> > really >>>>> >> >> > take a look at exynos_drm_connector, it's not doing anything >>>>> >> >> > useful. >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> No, That is for each driver has no any dependency of drm framework. >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > All it does is translate the drm callbacks into display callbacks, >>>>> >> >> > so >>>>> >> >> > I think it's much better to just implement the drm callbacks >>>>> >> >> > directly. >>>>> >> >> > >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> No, It has strongly dependency of drm framework. Assume that we >>>>> >> >> implemented the drm callbacks directly, and then some features are >>>>> >> >> added to drm framework, drm_connector side. At this time, we will >>>>> >> >> have >>>>> >> >> to take care of each device driver according to the change. That is >>>>> >> >> really not good. Why device drivers should have dependency of drm >>>>> >> >> framework? Just to reduce line counts? >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > You seem to miss the point here and elsewhere in the discussion. >>>>> >> > drm/exynos is a drm driver, and as such it should use the drm >>>>> >> > framework, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Hm.. you seem to miss something. Exynos drm based drivers are based on >>>>> >> exynos drm framework, not drm framework directly. So I mean that >>>>> >> Exynos drm framework based drivers should include only Exynos drm >>>>> >> headers, _not drm header_ directly. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Well, I think everyone sees that exynos is different. But my point still >>>>> > remains: why is the exynos driver in drm/ if it wants to use a different >>>>> > framework? Right now it is blocking work on a proper drm driver... >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> Noooooo. It's not to use a different framework. It's to use a wrapper >>>>> instead. >>>> >>>> >>>> Ok, if you want to call it a wrapper, then what is the point of doing this >>>> wrapping given that it prevents a proper drm-style implementation? >>>> >>> >>> I already commented. That is for only Exynos drm framework has >>> dependency of drm framework directly, and Exynos drm based drivers >>> include only Exynos drm headers. >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> > especially if this reduces the line count and the code >>>>> >> > complexity (as is the case for this patch series). If you don't want >>>>> >> > to maintain a drm driver, it simply should be moved away from drm/, >>>>> >> > and it should be replaced by a real drm driver in my opinion. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> So those drivers should be in drm/exynos. Isn't that you really mean >>>>> >> those drivers should be driver/gpu/drm? >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > I don't understand this sentence, sorry. >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, again, you mean Exynos drm based drivers should be in >>>>> drivers/gpu/drm, not drivers/gpu/drm/exynos? >>>>> >>>> Is the exynos drm useful in its current shape at all? My recommendation >>>> would be to fork off a real drm driver in gpu/drm/exynos with the current >>>> code as a base. >>>> >>> >>> Yes as of now. of course, There could be a better way. However, I >>> don't want for Exynos drm based drivers have dependency of drm >>> framework directly. >>> >> >> Just to satisfy my curiosity, do you actually have something that uses >> these drivers outside of drm? >> > > Never no. > > >> So I think we've reached somewhat of an impasse. I'd like to move the >> driver towards a proper drm driver (ie: no exynos >> framework/wrapper/whatever), you'd like to keep things separate. So >> should we create a new exynos driver drivers/drm/gpu/exynos5 to house >> the drm driver? > > Did you check out other drm drivers using similar way? And If so, the > other drm framework based drivers should be moved? No, I haven't looked at other ARM drivers. It's besides the point, really, that's not a compelling argument. For the exynos driver, in particular, it doesn't make sense to wrapping everything in exynos_drm_* > What is the problem > that Exynos drm based drivers include only Exynos drm headers, not drm > framework header directly? Is that really a big issue? I _cannot_ > understand your behavior. The problem is that it makes things unnecessarily complex for no benefit. For example, that you wanted to implement connector_funcs->set_property() just in the hdmi driver. This requires that you add a new display_op in exynos_drm_drv.h, then you implement the connector_func callback in exynos_drm_connector to check if the op is implemented then call it, and then you implement the set_property hook in the hdmi driver. If you didn't have the wrapper, you just implement the hook in the hdmi driver. Sean > Anyway, if there are any reasons that Exynos > drm based drivers should necessary include drm framework header > directly, I will agree it. > > Thanks, > Inki Dae > >> >> Sean >> >> >>> Thanks for your opinions. >>> Inki Dae >>> >>>> Stéphane >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Inki Dae >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> > Stéphane >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >> >>>>> >> If so, That would really be >>>>> >> horrible. :( >>>>> >> >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Please, know that only Exynos drm framework, _not device drivers_, has >>>>> >> all dependencies of drm framework, and also I know that other ARM >>>>> >> based drm drivers are using same way. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Thanks, >>>>> >> Inki Dae >>>>> >> >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > Stéphane >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > There are a bunch of real bugs that we've found as a result of >>>>> >> >> > having >>>>> >> >> > these abstraction layers. Take, for example, dpms. Before this >>>>> >> >> > patchset, dpms for fimd was being tracked separately in fimd >>>>> >> >> > driver, >>>>> >> >> > exynos_drm_encoder, exynos_drm_crtc, and exynos_drm_connector. >>>>> >> >> > Furthermore, during suspend, only fimd driver's dpms state was >>>>> >> >> > updated, so the others were incorrect. There was also this weird >>>>> >> >> > gymnastics that had to happen when dpms was changed in the encoder >>>>> >> >> > since it had to walk up to the connector level to change its dpms >>>>> >> >> > state. If fimd just directly implemented >>>>> >> >> > drm_crtc/drm_encoder/drm_connector (before dp was moved in), this >>>>> >> >> > problem wouldn't exist. The same goes for HDMI/mixer. >>>>> >> >> > >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> That is a issue we should take care of by using the independent >>>>> >> >> layer. >>>>> >> >> Then, aren't you take care of that well with the re-factoring patch >>>>> >> >> set? :) It seems that you are outside real point. >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > Take a look at exynos_drm_encoder.c in my tree >>>>> >> >> > >>>>> >> >> > >>>>> >> >> > >>>>> >> >> > (https://github.com/crseanpaul/exynos-drm-next/blob/linux-next-exynos-staging/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_encoder.c), >>>>> >> >> > what does it do that's useful to abstract? All that it does is >>>>> >> >> > just >>>>> >> >> > call display ops, it's completely useless. The same is true for >>>>> >> >> > exynos_drm_connector, it's just dead weight. There is some useful >>>>> >> >> > stuff in exynos_drm_crtc for page flipping, that would be better >>>>> >> >> > served as a helper library, though. >>>>> >> >> > >>>>> >> >> >> The abstraction layer you mentioned also means a common spot. >>>>> >> >> >> Another one, you patch also makes each sub driver have strongly >>>>> >> >> >> dependency >>>>> >> >> >> of drm framework. So how we can support existing backlight and >>>>> >> >> >> lcd >>>>> >> >> >> class >>>>> >> >> >> based lcd panel drivers if the connector is implemented in each >>>>> >> >> >> device >>>>> >> >> >> driver later? the drm header files should be included in >>>>> >> >> >> drivers/video/backlight/xxx_lcd.c? >>>>> >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > >>>>> >> >> > drm_bridge or drm_panel seem like good candidates for this. >>>>> >> >> > >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> Yes, exynos_drm_display could be replaced with drm_panel later if >>>>> >> >> the >>>>> >> >> drm_panel can be merged to mainline. >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > >>>>> >> >> >> And, I will introduce a new framework to support existing lcd >>>>> >> >> >> panel >>>>> >> >> >> drivers >>>>> >> >> >> and display bus drivers soon; as of now for Exynos drm, and the >>>>> >> >> >> framework is >>>>> >> >> >> being tested internally. With this framework, encoder and >>>>> >> >> >> connector >>>>> >> >> >> will be >>>>> >> >> >> created when lcd panel or display bus driver such as eDP is >>>>> >> >> >> probed: >>>>> >> >> >> it >>>>> >> >> >> doesn’t really need to create encoder and connector in advance if >>>>> >> >> >> lcd >>>>> >> >> >> panel >>>>> >> >> >> or display bus driver isn't probed yet. Regardless of crtc, and >>>>> >> >> >> encoder >>>>> >> >> >> and >>>>> >> >> >> connector creation order, when last one is created, crtc and >>>>> >> >> >> connector >>>>> >> >> >> will >>>>> >> >> >> be connected each other. And exynos_drm_display could be >>>>> >> >> >> implemented >>>>> >> >> >> in >>>>> >> >> >> other frameworks if we have common structure for display device >>>>> >> >> >> driver. >>>>> >> >> >> And >>>>> >> >> >> also the framework will support lvds driver according to Linux >>>>> >> >> >> device >>>>> >> >> >> driver >>>>> >> >> >> model. >>>>> >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > >>>>> >> >> > I don't really follow what you're trying to do here, but I think >>>>> >> >> > we >>>>> >> >> > should be moving in the direction of fewer abstractions in the >>>>> >> >> > exynos >>>>> >> >> > driver, not more :) >>>>> >> >> > >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> Not abstraction layer, just a bridge for connecting crtc and its >>>>> >> >> corresponding encoder/connector, and lvds regardless of creation >>>>> >> >> order, and for connecting drm connector and other framework based >>>>> >> >> display ops such as drm_panel later. >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > Sean >>>>> >> >> > >>>>> >> >> > >>>>> >> >> > >>>>> >> >> >> Thanks, >>>>> >> >> >> Inki Dae >>>>> >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>> Sean >>>>> >> >> >>> >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > And another one, the patch 6 passes manager object to >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > manager_ops, >>>>> >> >> >>> and >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> for >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > this, you made the manager object to be set to driver >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > data; >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, &manager). That isn't >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > reasonable. >>>>> >> >> >>> Generally, >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > driver_data would point to device driver's context object. >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> I'm not sure why this isn't reasonable, but it's a moot >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> point. >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> The >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> driver data is only used up until we get rid of the pm ops, >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> it >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> needn't >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> be set at all once things go through dpms. >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >> >>> >> Generally, device drivers can call its own internal >>>>> >> >> >>> >> functions, >>>>> >> >> >>> >> and >>>>> >> >> >>> >> they >>>>> >> >> >>> will >>>>> >> >> >>> >> call that functions with ctx. However, if you set manager to >>>>> >> >> >>> driver_data >>>>> >> >> >>> >> then that functions should be called with manager object and >>>>> >> >> >>> >> also >>>>> >> >> >>> internally >>>>> >> >> >>> >> that functions should get ctx from the manager object. What >>>>> >> >> >>> >> is >>>>> >> >> >>> >> the >>>>> >> >> >>> purpose >>>>> >> >> >>> >> of manager? Do you think it's reasonable? >>>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >> >>> > >>>>> >> >> >>> > So, to avoid setting the manager as the drvdata, we could >>>>> >> >> >>> > implement >>>>> >> >> >>> > something like fimd_dpms_ctx(ctx, mode) that takes ctx and the >>>>> >> >> >>> > manager >>>>> >> >> >>> > callback calls it fimd_dpms(mgr, mode) { ctx = mgr->ctx; >>>>> >> >> >>> > fimd_dpms_ctx(ctx, mode); }. Alternatively, you can save a >>>>> >> >> >>> > pointer >>>>> >> >> >>> > to >>>>> >> >> >>> > mgr in ctx, but that creates a circular link between the two. >>>>> >> >> >>> > IMO, >>>>> >> >> >>> > both of those solutions suck :) >>>>> >> >> >>> > >>>>> >> >> >>> > I'd much rather just set drvdata to the manager and call the >>>>> >> >> >>> > hook >>>>> >> >> >>> > directly. Like I said earlier, this is just a temporary step >>>>> >> >> >>> > since >>>>> >> >> >>> > we >>>>> >> >> >>> > remove these pm ops later in the patch series. >>>>> >> >> >>> > >>>>> >> >> >>> > Sean >>>>> >> >> >>> > >>>>> >> >> >>> > >>>>> >> >> >>> >> Anyway, I'd like to say really sorry about inconvenient >>>>> >> >> >>> >> again. >>>>> >> >> >>> >> So I >>>>> >> >> >>> will fix >>>>> >> >> >>> >> it. >>>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >> >>> >> Thanks, >>>>> >> >> >>> >> Inki Dae >>>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> Sean >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > Thanks, >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > Inki Dae >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > >>>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >>>>> >> >> > dri-devel mailing list >>>>> >> >> > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >>>>> >> >> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >>>>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >>>>> >> >> dri-devel mailing list >>>>> >> >> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >>>>> >> >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > _______________________________________________ >>>>> >> > dri-devel mailing list >>>>> >> > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >>>>> >> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >>>>> >> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>> > dri-devel mailing list >>>>> > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >>>>> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> dri-devel mailing list >>>> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >>>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> dri-devel mailing list >>> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >> _______________________________________________ >> dri-devel mailing list >> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
2013/10/23 Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>: > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:42 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: >> 2013/10/23 Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>: >>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:48 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: >>>> 2013/10/23 Stéphane Marchesin <stephane.marchesin@gmail.com>: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> 2013/10/23 Stéphane Marchesin <stephane.marchesin@gmail.com>: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> 2013/10/23 Stéphane Marchesin <stephane.marchesin@gmail.com>: >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> >>>>>> >> > wrote: >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> 2013/10/22 Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>: >>>>>> >> >> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> >>>>>> >> >> > wrote: >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> >> >> >>> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] >>>>>> >> >> >>> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 6:18 AM >>>>>> >> >> >>> To: Inki Dae >>>>>> >> >> >>> Cc: dri-devel; Dave Airlie; Tomasz Figa; Stéphane Marchesin >>>>>> >> >> >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split >>>>>> >> >> >>> manager/display/subdrv >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >> >>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Sean Paul >>>>>> >> >> >>> <seanpaul@chromium.org> >>>>>> >> >> >>> wrote: >>>>>> >> >> >>> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Inki Dae >>>>>> >> >> >>> > <inki.dae@samsung.com> >>>>>> >> >> >>> > wrote: >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 11:37 PM >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> To: Inki Dae >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> Cc: dri-devel; Dave Airlie; Tomasz Figa; Stéphane Marchesin >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> manager/display/subdrv >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Inki Dae >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> <inki.dae@samsung.com> >>>>>> >> >> >> wrote: >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:27 AM >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> To: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; inki.dae@samsung.com >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> Cc: airlied@linux.ie; tomasz.figa@gmail.com; >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> marcheu@chromium.org; >>>>>> >> >> >>> Sean >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> Paul >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> Subject: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> manager/display/subdrv >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> This patch splits display and manager from subdrv. The >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> result >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> is >>>>>> >> >> >>> that >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> crtc functions can directly call into manager callbacks >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> and >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> encoder >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> functions can directly call into display callbacks. This >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> will >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> allow >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> us to remove the exynos_drm_hdmi shim and support >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> mixer/hdmi >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> & >>>>>> >> >> >>> fimd/dp >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> with common code. >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> Signed-off-by: Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> --- >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> Changes in v2: >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> - Pass display into display_ops instead of context >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > Sorry but it seems like more reasonable to pass device >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > object >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > into >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > display_ops and manager_ops. >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> So you've changed your mind from when you said the >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> following? >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> manager->ops->xxx(manager, ...); >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> display->ops->xxx(display, ...); >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> Agree. >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> True. Before that, My comment was to pass device object into >>>>>> >> >> >>> display_ops and >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> manager_ops, and then you said the good solution is to pass >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> manager >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> and >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> display to each driver. At that time, I thought no matter how >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> the >>>>>> >> >> >>> callback >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> is called if the framework doesn't call callbacks of each >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> driver >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> with >>>>>> >> >> >>> ctx. >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> So I agreed. >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> It would have been nice if you had changed your mind >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> *before* I >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> reworked everything. At any rate, I think it's still the >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> right >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> thing >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> to do. >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> Really sorry about that. And I will add new patch for it so >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> you >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> don't >>>>>> >> >> >>> need >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> to concern about that. >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > I'm not sure but display_ops could be implemented in other >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > framework >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> based >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > driver such as CDF based lcd panel driver. So if you pass >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > display - >>>>>> >> >> >>> it's >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > specific to exynos drm framework - into display_ops, the >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > other >>>>>> >> >> >>> framework >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > based driver should include specific exynos drm header. >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> AFAIK, CDF will not land in its current separate-from-drm >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> form, >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> we >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> don't need to worry about this. Furthermore, these ops >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> should >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> just >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> go >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> away and become drm_crtc/drm_encoder/drm_connector funcs >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> anyways. >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> Can you assure the display_ops never implemented in other >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> framework >>>>>> >> >> >>> based >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> driver, not CDF? At any rate, I think all possibilities >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> should >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> be >>>>>> >> >> >>> opened. >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>> > I don't think we should let an RFC framework make the code >>>>>> >> >> >>> > more >>>>>> >> >> >>> > complicated for unclear benefit. By removing manager/display >>>>>> >> >> >>> > entirely, >>>>>> >> >> >>> > we can get rid of a *lot* of other code that is basically just >>>>>> >> >> >>> > plumbing drm hooks (exynos_drm_connector is a good example). >>>>>> >> >> >>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >> >>> I hacked this up today to prove it out. Check out the top 5 >>>>>> >> >> >>> commits >>>>>> >> >> >>> in >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >> >>> https://github.com/crseanpaul/exynos-drm-next/commits/linux-next-exynos- >>>>>> >> >> >>> staging. >>>>>> >> >> >>> It removes exynos_drm_connector in favor of just implementing >>>>>> >> >> >>> drm_connector directly. This same treatment should be done for >>>>>> >> >> >>> exynos_drm_encoder and exynos_drm_crtc, but I didn't get around >>>>>> >> >> >>> to >>>>>> >> >> >>> doing this. >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >> >>> As you can see, it cuts out a lot of code and removes an entire >>>>>> >> >> >>> abstraction layer. Much nicer :) >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> It seems that you implements connector in each device driver. >>>>>> >> >> >> Can't >>>>>> >> >> >> they be >>>>>> >> >> >> combined as common spot, exynos_connector, again to avoid codes >>>>>> >> >> >> from >>>>>> >> >> >> duplicated? :) >>>>>> >> >> > >>>>>> >> >> > There's nothing of substance being duplicated. >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> Not true. xxx_create_connector is duplicated. >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> > In fact, by getting rid >>>>>> >> >> > of the exynos_drm_connector layer, we deleted 150 lines. If you >>>>>> >> >> > really >>>>>> >> >> > take a look at exynos_drm_connector, it's not doing anything >>>>>> >> >> > useful. >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> No, That is for each driver has no any dependency of drm framework. >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> > All it does is translate the drm callbacks into display callbacks, >>>>>> >> >> > so >>>>>> >> >> > I think it's much better to just implement the drm callbacks >>>>>> >> >> > directly. >>>>>> >> >> > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> No, It has strongly dependency of drm framework. Assume that we >>>>>> >> >> implemented the drm callbacks directly, and then some features are >>>>>> >> >> added to drm framework, drm_connector side. At this time, we will >>>>>> >> >> have >>>>>> >> >> to take care of each device driver according to the change. That is >>>>>> >> >> really not good. Why device drivers should have dependency of drm >>>>>> >> >> framework? Just to reduce line counts? >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> > You seem to miss the point here and elsewhere in the discussion. >>>>>> >> > drm/exynos is a drm driver, and as such it should use the drm >>>>>> >> > framework, >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Hm.. you seem to miss something. Exynos drm based drivers are based on >>>>>> >> exynos drm framework, not drm framework directly. So I mean that >>>>>> >> Exynos drm framework based drivers should include only Exynos drm >>>>>> >> headers, _not drm header_ directly. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Well, I think everyone sees that exynos is different. But my point still >>>>>> > remains: why is the exynos driver in drm/ if it wants to use a different >>>>>> > framework? Right now it is blocking work on a proper drm driver... >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> Noooooo. It's not to use a different framework. It's to use a wrapper >>>>>> instead. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ok, if you want to call it a wrapper, then what is the point of doing this >>>>> wrapping given that it prevents a proper drm-style implementation? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I already commented. That is for only Exynos drm framework has >>>> dependency of drm framework directly, and Exynos drm based drivers >>>> include only Exynos drm headers. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> > especially if this reduces the line count and the code >>>>>> >> > complexity (as is the case for this patch series). If you don't want >>>>>> >> > to maintain a drm driver, it simply should be moved away from drm/, >>>>>> >> > and it should be replaced by a real drm driver in my opinion. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> So those drivers should be in drm/exynos. Isn't that you really mean >>>>>> >> those drivers should be driver/gpu/drm? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > I don't understand this sentence, sorry. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry, again, you mean Exynos drm based drivers should be in >>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm, not drivers/gpu/drm/exynos? >>>>>> >>>>> Is the exynos drm useful in its current shape at all? My recommendation >>>>> would be to fork off a real drm driver in gpu/drm/exynos with the current >>>>> code as a base. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes as of now. of course, There could be a better way. However, I >>>> don't want for Exynos drm based drivers have dependency of drm >>>> framework directly. >>>> >>> >>> Just to satisfy my curiosity, do you actually have something that uses >>> these drivers outside of drm? >>> >> >> Never no. >> >> >>> So I think we've reached somewhat of an impasse. I'd like to move the >>> driver towards a proper drm driver (ie: no exynos >>> framework/wrapper/whatever), you'd like to keep things separate. So >>> should we create a new exynos driver drivers/drm/gpu/exynos5 to house >>> the drm driver? >> >> Did you check out other drm drivers using similar way? And If so, the >> other drm framework based drivers should be moved? > > No, I haven't looked at other ARM drivers. It's besides the point, Look at omapdrm, nouveau, and radeon drm drivers. > really, that's not a compelling argument. For the exynos driver, in > particular, it doesn't make sense to wrapping everything in > exynos_drm_* That is really not thing to make sense or not. If you think this wrapping doesn't make sense, then can you argue about that the above drivers; omapdrm, nouveau, and radeon don't also make sense? That would definitely be just their style. If this design has some problem so the above drm maintainers also want to change their design, then I will merge your patch set. > >> What is the problem >> that Exynos drm based drivers include only Exynos drm headers, not drm >> framework header directly? Is that really a big issue? I _cannot_ >> understand your behavior. > > The problem is that it makes things unnecessarily complex for no benefit. > > For example, that you wanted to implement > connector_funcs->set_property() just in the hdmi driver. This requires > that you add a new display_op in exynos_drm_drv.h, then you implement > the connector_func callback in exynos_drm_connector to check if the op > is implemented then call it, and then you implement the set_property > hook in the hdmi driver. If you didn't have the wrapper, you just > implement the hook in the hdmi driver. > As I mentioned earlier, display_ops is needed to have no any dependency of drm framework directly like below, DRM Framework | Exynos DRM Framework / | \ Real device drivers In particular, in case of ARM based DRM drivers with separated devices, I still tend to think it's better design than that device drivers implement the connector callbacks directly, but I will try to consider what is the better way. Anyway, can you fix the build error to vidi module? I cannot merge your re-factoring patch set to exynos-drm-next. Thanks, Inki Dae > Sean > > >> Anyway, if there are any reasons that Exynos >> drm based drivers should necessary include drm framework header >> directly, I will agree it. >> >> Thanks, >> Inki Dae >> >>> >>> Sean >>> >>> >>>> Thanks for your opinions. >>>> Inki Dae >>>> >>>>> Stéphane >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Inki Dae >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Stéphane >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> If so, That would really be >>>>>> >> horrible. :( >>>>>> >> >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Please, know that only Exynos drm framework, _not device drivers_, has >>>>>> >> all dependencies of drm framework, and also I know that other ARM >>>>>> >> based drm drivers are using same way. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Thanks, >>>>>> >> Inki Dae >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> > Stéphane >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> > There are a bunch of real bugs that we've found as a result of >>>>>> >> >> > having >>>>>> >> >> > these abstraction layers. Take, for example, dpms. Before this >>>>>> >> >> > patchset, dpms for fimd was being tracked separately in fimd >>>>>> >> >> > driver, >>>>>> >> >> > exynos_drm_encoder, exynos_drm_crtc, and exynos_drm_connector. >>>>>> >> >> > Furthermore, during suspend, only fimd driver's dpms state was >>>>>> >> >> > updated, so the others were incorrect. There was also this weird >>>>>> >> >> > gymnastics that had to happen when dpms was changed in the encoder >>>>>> >> >> > since it had to walk up to the connector level to change its dpms >>>>>> >> >> > state. If fimd just directly implemented >>>>>> >> >> > drm_crtc/drm_encoder/drm_connector (before dp was moved in), this >>>>>> >> >> > problem wouldn't exist. The same goes for HDMI/mixer. >>>>>> >> >> > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> That is a issue we should take care of by using the independent >>>>>> >> >> layer. >>>>>> >> >> Then, aren't you take care of that well with the re-factoring patch >>>>>> >> >> set? :) It seems that you are outside real point. >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> > Take a look at exynos_drm_encoder.c in my tree >>>>>> >> >> > >>>>>> >> >> > >>>>>> >> >> > >>>>>> >> >> > (https://github.com/crseanpaul/exynos-drm-next/blob/linux-next-exynos-staging/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_encoder.c), >>>>>> >> >> > what does it do that's useful to abstract? All that it does is >>>>>> >> >> > just >>>>>> >> >> > call display ops, it's completely useless. The same is true for >>>>>> >> >> > exynos_drm_connector, it's just dead weight. There is some useful >>>>>> >> >> > stuff in exynos_drm_crtc for page flipping, that would be better >>>>>> >> >> > served as a helper library, though. >>>>>> >> >> > >>>>>> >> >> >> The abstraction layer you mentioned also means a common spot. >>>>>> >> >> >> Another one, you patch also makes each sub driver have strongly >>>>>> >> >> >> dependency >>>>>> >> >> >> of drm framework. So how we can support existing backlight and >>>>>> >> >> >> lcd >>>>>> >> >> >> class >>>>>> >> >> >> based lcd panel drivers if the connector is implemented in each >>>>>> >> >> >> device >>>>>> >> >> >> driver later? the drm header files should be included in >>>>>> >> >> >> drivers/video/backlight/xxx_lcd.c? >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> > >>>>>> >> >> > drm_bridge or drm_panel seem like good candidates for this. >>>>>> >> >> > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> Yes, exynos_drm_display could be replaced with drm_panel later if >>>>>> >> >> the >>>>>> >> >> drm_panel can be merged to mainline. >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> > >>>>>> >> >> >> And, I will introduce a new framework to support existing lcd >>>>>> >> >> >> panel >>>>>> >> >> >> drivers >>>>>> >> >> >> and display bus drivers soon; as of now for Exynos drm, and the >>>>>> >> >> >> framework is >>>>>> >> >> >> being tested internally. With this framework, encoder and >>>>>> >> >> >> connector >>>>>> >> >> >> will be >>>>>> >> >> >> created when lcd panel or display bus driver such as eDP is >>>>>> >> >> >> probed: >>>>>> >> >> >> it >>>>>> >> >> >> doesn’t really need to create encoder and connector in advance if >>>>>> >> >> >> lcd >>>>>> >> >> >> panel >>>>>> >> >> >> or display bus driver isn't probed yet. Regardless of crtc, and >>>>>> >> >> >> encoder >>>>>> >> >> >> and >>>>>> >> >> >> connector creation order, when last one is created, crtc and >>>>>> >> >> >> connector >>>>>> >> >> >> will >>>>>> >> >> >> be connected each other. And exynos_drm_display could be >>>>>> >> >> >> implemented >>>>>> >> >> >> in >>>>>> >> >> >> other frameworks if we have common structure for display device >>>>>> >> >> >> driver. >>>>>> >> >> >> And >>>>>> >> >> >> also the framework will support lvds driver according to Linux >>>>>> >> >> >> device >>>>>> >> >> >> driver >>>>>> >> >> >> model. >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> > >>>>>> >> >> > I don't really follow what you're trying to do here, but I think >>>>>> >> >> > we >>>>>> >> >> > should be moving in the direction of fewer abstractions in the >>>>>> >> >> > exynos >>>>>> >> >> > driver, not more :) >>>>>> >> >> > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> Not abstraction layer, just a bridge for connecting crtc and its >>>>>> >> >> corresponding encoder/connector, and lvds regardless of creation >>>>>> >> >> order, and for connecting drm connector and other framework based >>>>>> >> >> display ops such as drm_panel later. >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> > Sean >>>>>> >> >> > >>>>>> >> >> > >>>>>> >> >> > >>>>>> >> >> >> Thanks, >>>>>> >> >> >> Inki Dae >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>> Sean >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > And another one, the patch 6 passes manager object to >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > manager_ops, >>>>>> >> >> >>> and >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> for >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > this, you made the manager object to be set to driver >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > data; >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, &manager). That isn't >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > reasonable. >>>>>> >> >> >>> Generally, >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > driver_data would point to device driver's context object. >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> I'm not sure why this isn't reasonable, but it's a moot >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> point. >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> The >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> driver data is only used up until we get rid of the pm ops, >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> it >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> needn't >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> be set at all once things go through dpms. >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> Generally, device drivers can call its own internal >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> functions, >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> and >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> they >>>>>> >> >> >>> will >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> call that functions with ctx. However, if you set manager to >>>>>> >> >> >>> driver_data >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> then that functions should be called with manager object and >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> also >>>>>> >> >> >>> internally >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> that functions should get ctx from the manager object. What >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> is >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> the >>>>>> >> >> >>> purpose >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> of manager? Do you think it's reasonable? >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>> > So, to avoid setting the manager as the drvdata, we could >>>>>> >> >> >>> > implement >>>>>> >> >> >>> > something like fimd_dpms_ctx(ctx, mode) that takes ctx and the >>>>>> >> >> >>> > manager >>>>>> >> >> >>> > callback calls it fimd_dpms(mgr, mode) { ctx = mgr->ctx; >>>>>> >> >> >>> > fimd_dpms_ctx(ctx, mode); }. Alternatively, you can save a >>>>>> >> >> >>> > pointer >>>>>> >> >> >>> > to >>>>>> >> >> >>> > mgr in ctx, but that creates a circular link between the two. >>>>>> >> >> >>> > IMO, >>>>>> >> >> >>> > both of those solutions suck :) >>>>>> >> >> >>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>> > I'd much rather just set drvdata to the manager and call the >>>>>> >> >> >>> > hook >>>>>> >> >> >>> > directly. Like I said earlier, this is just a temporary step >>>>>> >> >> >>> > since >>>>>> >> >> >>> > we >>>>>> >> >> >>> > remove these pm ops later in the patch series. >>>>>> >> >> >>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>> > Sean >>>>>> >> >> >>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> Anyway, I'd like to say really sorry about inconvenient >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> again. >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> So I >>>>>> >> >> >>> will fix >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> it. >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> Thanks, >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> Inki Dae >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> Sean >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > Thanks, >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > Inki Dae >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>> >> >> > dri-devel mailing list >>>>>> >> >> > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >>>>>> >> >> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >>>>>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> >> >> dri-devel mailing list >>>>>> >> >> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >>>>>> >> >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>> >> > dri-devel mailing list >>>>>> >> > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >>>>>> >> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>> > dri-devel mailing list >>>>>> > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >>>>>> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >>>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> dri-devel mailing list >>>>> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >>>>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> dri-devel mailing list >>>> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >>>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >>> _______________________________________________ >>> dri-devel mailing list >>> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
> As I mentioned earlier, display_ops is needed to have no any > dependency of drm framework directly like below, > > DRM Framework > | > Exynos DRM Framework > / | \ > Real device drivers > > In particular, in case of ARM based DRM drivers with separated > devices, I still tend to think it's better design than that device > drivers implement the connector callbacks directly, but I will try to > consider what is the better way. > I think we need to start considering a framework where subdrivers just add drm objects themselves, then the toplevel node is responsible for knowing that everything for the current configuration is loaded. I realise we may need to make changes to the core drm to allow this but we should probably start to create a strategy for fixing the API issues that this throws up. Note I'm not yet advocating for dynamic addition of nodes once the device is in use, or removing them. Dave.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote: >> As I mentioned earlier, display_ops is needed to have no any >> dependency of drm framework directly like below, >> >> DRM Framework >> | >> Exynos DRM Framework >> / | \ >> Real device drivers >> >> In particular, in case of ARM based DRM drivers with separated >> devices, I still tend to think it's better design than that device >> drivers implement the connector callbacks directly, but I will try to >> consider what is the better way. >> > > I think we need to start considering a framework where subdrivers just > add drm objects themselves, then the toplevel node is responsible for > knowing that everything for the current configuration is loaded. > It would be nice to specify the various pieces in dt, then have some type of drm notifier to the toplevel node when everything has been probed. Doing it in the dt would allow standalone drm_bridge/drm_panel drivers to be transparent as far as the device's drm driver is concerned. Sean > I realise we may need to make changes to the core drm to allow this > but we should probably start to create a strategy for fixing the API > issues that this throws up. > > Note I'm not yet advocating for dynamic addition of nodes once the > device is in use, or removing them. > > Dave.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote:
> Look at omapdrm, nouveau, and radeon drm drivers.
btw, please don't look at omapdrm as a "good" example in this regard.
The layering is really not a good idea and for a long time caused a
lot of problems, which we essentially solved by bypassing parts of the
layering. I still think omapdss and omapdrm should be flattened into
a single drm driver, then net result would be a drop in # of lines of
code. I wish there were folks like the Sean and Stéphane who cared
enough to do this for omapdrm ;-)
Other drivers have some modularity to separate code that is
significantly different across genarations (but what form that takes
differs depending on what how the hw differs across generations).
This isn't a bad thing. But you need to look at the end result. For
example how I split out the phy code for the mdp4 code in msm (hdmi
and dsi phy differ between otherwise similar 28nm and 45nm parts, but
the rest of the display controller blocks are basically the same).
BR,
-R
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote: >>> As I mentioned earlier, display_ops is needed to have no any >>> dependency of drm framework directly like below, >>> >>> DRM Framework >>> | >>> Exynos DRM Framework >>> / | \ >>> Real device drivers >>> >>> In particular, in case of ARM based DRM drivers with separated >>> devices, I still tend to think it's better design than that device >>> drivers implement the connector callbacks directly, but I will try to >>> consider what is the better way. >>> >> >> I think we need to start considering a framework where subdrivers just >> add drm objects themselves, then the toplevel node is responsible for >> knowing that everything for the current configuration is loaded. >> > > It would be nice to specify the various pieces in dt, then have some > type of drm notifier to the toplevel node when everything has been > probed. Doing it in the dt would allow standalone drm_bridge/drm_panel > drivers to be transparent as far as the device's drm driver is > concerned. > > Sean > > >> I realise we may need to make changes to the core drm to allow this >> but we should probably start to create a strategy for fixing the API >> issues that this throws up. >> >> Note I'm not yet advocating for dynamic addition of nodes once the >> device is in use, or removing them. >> I do wonder if we had some sort of tag in the device tree for any nodes involved in the display, and the core drm layer would read that list, and when every driver registers tick things off, and when the last one joins we get a callback and init the drm layer, we'd of course have the basic drm layer setup prior to that so we can add the objects as the drivers load. It might make development a bit trickier as you'd need to make sure someone claimed ownership of all the bits for init to proceed. Dave.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> As I mentioned earlier, display_ops is needed to have no any >>>> dependency of drm framework directly like below, >>>> >>>> DRM Framework >>>> | >>>> Exynos DRM Framework >>>> / | \ >>>> Real device drivers >>>> >>>> In particular, in case of ARM based DRM drivers with separated >>>> devices, I still tend to think it's better design than that device >>>> drivers implement the connector callbacks directly, but I will try to >>>> consider what is the better way. >>>> >>> >>> I think we need to start considering a framework where subdrivers just >>> add drm objects themselves, then the toplevel node is responsible for >>> knowing that everything for the current configuration is loaded. >>> >> >> It would be nice to specify the various pieces in dt, then have some >> type of drm notifier to the toplevel node when everything has been >> probed. Doing it in the dt would allow standalone drm_bridge/drm_panel >> drivers to be transparent as far as the device's drm driver is >> concerned. >> >> Sean >> >> >>> I realise we may need to make changes to the core drm to allow this >>> but we should probably start to create a strategy for fixing the API >>> issues that this throws up. >>> >>> Note I'm not yet advocating for dynamic addition of nodes once the >>> device is in use, or removing them. >>> > > I do wonder if we had some sort of tag in the device tree for any nodes > involved in the display, and the core drm layer would read that list, > and when every driver registers tick things off, and when the last one > joins we get a callback and init the drm layer, we'd of course have the > basic drm layer setup prior to that so we can add the objects as the > drivers load. It might make development a bit trickier as you'd need > to make sure someone claimed ownership of all the bits for init to proceed. I think we do definitely need a way to group nodes so we know what needs to be assembled into a drm driver. I know folks seem to believe that DT should be software agnostic, but maybe we just need some grouper nodes that sit on the side and know how to map device DT nodes to software. (The real funny thing about needing that is.. well I've yet to see someone be able to hot-unplug a block on a piece of silicon.) BR, -R > Dave. > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> As I mentioned earlier, display_ops is needed to have no any >>>> dependency of drm framework directly like below, >>>> >>>> DRM Framework >>>> | >>>> Exynos DRM Framework >>>> / | \ >>>> Real device drivers >>>> >>>> In particular, in case of ARM based DRM drivers with separated >>>> devices, I still tend to think it's better design than that device >>>> drivers implement the connector callbacks directly, but I will try to >>>> consider what is the better way. >>>> >>> >>> I think we need to start considering a framework where subdrivers just >>> add drm objects themselves, then the toplevel node is responsible for >>> knowing that everything for the current configuration is loaded. >>> >> >> It would be nice to specify the various pieces in dt, then have some >> type of drm notifier to the toplevel node when everything has been >> probed. Doing it in the dt would allow standalone drm_bridge/drm_panel >> drivers to be transparent as far as the device's drm driver is >> concerned. >> >> Sean >> >> >>> I realise we may need to make changes to the core drm to allow this >>> but we should probably start to create a strategy for fixing the API >>> issues that this throws up. >>> >>> Note I'm not yet advocating for dynamic addition of nodes once the >>> device is in use, or removing them. >>> > > I do wonder if we had some sort of tag in the device tree for any nodes > involved in the display, and the core drm layer would read that list, > and when every driver registers tick things off, and when the last one > joins we get a callback and init the drm layer, we'd of course have the > basic drm layer setup prior to that so we can add the objects as the > drivers load. It might make development a bit trickier as you'd need > to make sure someone claimed ownership of all the bits for init to proceed. > Yeah, that's basically what the strawman looked like in my head. Instead of a property in each node, I was thinking of having a separate gfx pipe nodes that would have dt pointers to the various pieces involved in that pipe. This would allow us to associate standalone entities like bridges and panels with encoders in dt w/o doing it in the drm code. I *think* this should be Ok with the dt guys since it is still describing the hardware, but I think we'd have to make sure it wasn't drm-specific. Sean > Dave.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> As I mentioned earlier, display_ops is needed to have no any >>>>> dependency of drm framework directly like below, >>>>> >>>>> DRM Framework >>>>> | >>>>> Exynos DRM Framework >>>>> / | \ >>>>> Real device drivers >>>>> >>>>> In particular, in case of ARM based DRM drivers with separated >>>>> devices, I still tend to think it's better design than that device >>>>> drivers implement the connector callbacks directly, but I will try to >>>>> consider what is the better way. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I think we need to start considering a framework where subdrivers just >>>> add drm objects themselves, then the toplevel node is responsible for >>>> knowing that everything for the current configuration is loaded. >>>> >>> >>> It would be nice to specify the various pieces in dt, then have some >>> type of drm notifier to the toplevel node when everything has been >>> probed. Doing it in the dt would allow standalone drm_bridge/drm_panel >>> drivers to be transparent as far as the device's drm driver is >>> concerned. >>> >>> Sean >>> >>> >>>> I realise we may need to make changes to the core drm to allow this >>>> but we should probably start to create a strategy for fixing the API >>>> issues that this throws up. >>>> >>>> Note I'm not yet advocating for dynamic addition of nodes once the >>>> device is in use, or removing them. >>>> >> >> I do wonder if we had some sort of tag in the device tree for any nodes >> involved in the display, and the core drm layer would read that list, >> and when every driver registers tick things off, and when the last one >> joins we get a callback and init the drm layer, we'd of course have the >> basic drm layer setup prior to that so we can add the objects as the >> drivers load. It might make development a bit trickier as you'd need >> to make sure someone claimed ownership of all the bits for init to proceed. >> > > Yeah, that's basically what the strawman looked like in my head. > > Instead of a property in each node, I was thinking of having a > separate gfx pipe nodes that would have dt pointers to the various > pieces involved in that pipe. This would allow us to associate > standalone entities like bridges and panels with encoders in dt w/o > doing it in the drm code. I *think* this should be Ok with the dt guys > since it is still describing the hardware, but I think we'd have to > make sure it wasn't drm-specific. > tl;dr: What Rob said > Sean > >> Dave.
>>>>> >>>> >>>> I think we need to start considering a framework where subdrivers just >>>> add drm objects themselves, then the toplevel node is responsible for >>>> knowing that everything for the current configuration is loaded. >>>> >>> >>> It would be nice to specify the various pieces in dt, then have some >>> type of drm notifier to the toplevel node when everything has been >>> probed. Doing it in the dt would allow standalone drm_bridge/drm_panel >>> drivers to be transparent as far as the device's drm driver is >>> concerned. >>> >>> Sean >>> >>> >>>> I realise we may need to make changes to the core drm to allow this >>>> but we should probably start to create a strategy for fixing the API >>>> issues that this throws up. >>>> >>>> Note I'm not yet advocating for dynamic addition of nodes once the >>>> device is in use, or removing them. >>>> >> >> I do wonder if we had some sort of tag in the device tree for any nodes >> involved in the display, and the core drm layer would read that list, >> and when every driver registers tick things off, and when the last one >> joins we get a callback and init the drm layer, we'd of course have the >> basic drm layer setup prior to that so we can add the objects as the >> drivers load. It might make development a bit trickier as you'd need >> to make sure someone claimed ownership of all the bits for init to proceed. >> > > Yeah, that's basically what the strawman looked like in my head. > > Instead of a property in each node, I was thinking of having a > separate gfx pipe nodes that would have dt pointers to the various > pieces involved in that pipe. This would allow us to associate > standalone entities like bridges and panels with encoders in dt w/o > doing it in the drm code. I *think* this should be Ok with the dt guys > since it is still describing the hardware, but I think we'd have to > make sure it wasn't drm-specific. > I suppose the question is how much dynamic pipeline construction there is, even on things like radeon and i915 we have dynamic clock generator to crtc to encoder setups, so I worry about static lists per-pipe, so I still think just stating all these devices are needed for display and a list of valid interconnections between them, then we can have the generic code model drm crtc/encoders/connectors on that list, and construct the possible_crtcs /possible_clones etc at that stage. Dave.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think we need to start considering a framework where subdrivers just >>>>> add drm objects themselves, then the toplevel node is responsible for >>>>> knowing that everything for the current configuration is loaded. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It would be nice to specify the various pieces in dt, then have some >>>> type of drm notifier to the toplevel node when everything has been >>>> probed. Doing it in the dt would allow standalone drm_bridge/drm_panel >>>> drivers to be transparent as far as the device's drm driver is >>>> concerned. >>>> >>>> Sean >>>> >>>> >>>>> I realise we may need to make changes to the core drm to allow this >>>>> but we should probably start to create a strategy for fixing the API >>>>> issues that this throws up. >>>>> >>>>> Note I'm not yet advocating for dynamic addition of nodes once the >>>>> device is in use, or removing them. >>>>> >>> >>> I do wonder if we had some sort of tag in the device tree for any nodes >>> involved in the display, and the core drm layer would read that list, >>> and when every driver registers tick things off, and when the last one >>> joins we get a callback and init the drm layer, we'd of course have the >>> basic drm layer setup prior to that so we can add the objects as the >>> drivers load. It might make development a bit trickier as you'd need >>> to make sure someone claimed ownership of all the bits for init to proceed. >>> >> >> Yeah, that's basically what the strawman looked like in my head. >> >> Instead of a property in each node, I was thinking of having a >> separate gfx pipe nodes that would have dt pointers to the various >> pieces involved in that pipe. This would allow us to associate >> standalone entities like bridges and panels with encoders in dt w/o >> doing it in the drm code. I *think* this should be Ok with the dt guys >> since it is still describing the hardware, but I think we'd have to >> make sure it wasn't drm-specific. >> > > I suppose the question is how much dynamic pipeline construction there is, > > even on things like radeon and i915 we have dynamic clock generator to > crtc to encoder setups, so I worry about static lists per-pipe, so I still > think just stating all these devices are needed for display and a list of valid > interconnections between them, then we can have the generic code model > drm crtc/encoders/connectors on that list, and construct the possible_crtcs > /possible_clones etc at that stage. > I'm, without excuse, hopeless at devicetree, so there are probably some violations, but something like: display-pipelines { required-elements = <&bridge-a &panel-a &encoder-x &encoder-y &crtc-x &crtc-y>; pipe1 { bridge = <&bridge-a>; encoder = <&encoder-x>; crtc = <&crtc-y>; }; pipe2 { encoder = <&encoder-x>; crtc = <&crtc-x>; }; pipe3 { panel = <&panel-a>; encoder = <&encoder-y>; crtc = <&crtc-y>; }; }; I'm tempted to add connector to the pipe nodes as well, so it's obvious which connector should be used in cases where multiple entities in the pipe implement drm_connector. However, I'm not sure if that would be NACKed by dt people. I'm also not sure if there are too many combinations for i915 and radeon to make this unreasonable. I suppose those devices could just use required-elements and leave the pipe nodes out. Sean > Dave.
2013/10/23 Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>: > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote: >>> As I mentioned earlier, display_ops is needed to have no any >>> dependency of drm framework directly like below, >>> >>> DRM Framework >>> | >>> Exynos DRM Framework >>> / | \ >>> Real device drivers >>> >>> In particular, in case of ARM based DRM drivers with separated >>> devices, I still tend to think it's better design than that device >>> drivers implement the connector callbacks directly, but I will try to >>> consider what is the better way. >>> >> >> I think we need to start considering a framework where subdrivers just >> add drm objects themselves, then the toplevel node is responsible for >> knowing that everything for the current configuration is loaded. >> > > It would be nice to specify the various pieces in dt, then have some > type of drm notifier to the toplevel node when everything has been > probed. Doing it in the dt would allow standalone drm_bridge/drm_panel > drivers to be transparent as far as the device's drm driver is > concerned. > Before that, I think we need to decide that drm driver should reuse lcd class based drivers, or just should copy the lcd class based drivers into drm framework. 1. in case that drm driver reuses the existing lcd class based drivers, - we would need a common layer across between Linux framebuffer and drm framework. In other words, the lcd class based drivers and drm driver should be able to include a header file to the common layer, and the header should provide some callbacks such as drm_panel structure, and also some functions to create a connector and a encoder. Actually, that is why Exynos drm framework has a wrapper to drm connector and encoder, and display_ops also. 2. in case that drm driver uses duplicated lcd driver, - we wouldn't need the common layer because a connector and a encoder can be created directly in the lcd driver so in this case, I think the wrapper to drm connector and display_ops wouldn't be needed anymore. And shouldn't the device tree related works be discussed after we select one of the above two cases? or should we consider all of the above two cases? > Sean > > >> I realise we may need to make changes to the core drm to allow this >> but we should probably start to create a strategy for fixing the API >> issues that this throws up. >> >> Note I'm not yet advocating for dynamic addition of nodes once the >> device is in use, or removing them. >> >> Dave. > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
2013/10/23 Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>: > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: >> Look at omapdrm, nouveau, and radeon drm drivers. > > > btw, please don't look at omapdrm as a "good" example in this regard. > The layering is really not a good idea and for a long time caused a > lot of problems, which we essentially solved by bypassing parts of the > layering. I still think omapdss and omapdrm should be flattened into > a single drm driver, then net result would be a drop in # of lines of It seems that you proper to use duplicated driver. I mean... do you proper that omapdss driver is placed in drm framework? Otherwise, is there any way that omapdss and omapdrm can be flattened into a single drm driver without moving omapdss into drm framework? As I mentioned earlier, we wanted to reuse the existing panel driver so Exynos drm framework has the layer, wrappers to connector and encoder. Of course, for this, we have TODO works yet, and I still think it's better way to keep the wrapper if we should reuse the existing panel drivers. The below would be one design for the case, lcd panel drivers \ | / drm framework ----- drm_bridge / | \ crtc drivers(display controller or hdmi) A header file of drm_bridge includes drm_panel structure having some callbacks related to connector, and some function to register crtc and panel driver's requests to the drm_bridge object. And the header file can be included in the existing panel drivers. In other words, drm_bridge will connect drm driver and lcd class based panel drivers. struct drm_bridge { struct list_head list; unsigned int type; struct drm_device *drm_dev; struct drm_panel *panel_ops; ... int (*drm_create_enc_conn)(....); }; A drm_bridge object has drm_panel ops and drm_create_enc_conn callback. And once the crtc driver calls register function of the drm_bridge with drm_create_enc_conn callback pointer, a drm_crtc is created, and once the panel driver calls the register function with drm_panel ops, a encoder and a connector are created. At this time, drm_fb_helper_initial_config() can be called appropriately to connect crtc and connector, and to display framebuffer on lcd panel. The above is just my opinion for the case, and we are testing this way implementing it internally. Thanks, Inki Dae > code. I wish there were folks like the Sean and Stéphane who cared > enough to do this for omapdrm ;-) > > Other drivers have some modularity to separate code that is > significantly different across genarations (but what form that takes > differs depending on what how the hw differs across generations). > This isn't a bad thing. But you need to look at the end result. For > example how I split out the phy code for the mdp4 code in msm (hdmi > and dsi phy differ between otherwise similar 28nm and 45nm parts, but > the rest of the display controller blocks are basically the same). > > BR, > -R > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
Sorry for some typos. 2013/10/24 Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com>: > 2013/10/23 Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>: >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: >>> Look at omapdrm, nouveau, and radeon drm drivers. >> >> >> btw, please don't look at omapdrm as a "good" example in this regard. >> The layering is really not a good idea and for a long time caused a >> lot of problems, which we essentially solved by bypassing parts of the >> layering. I still think omapdss and omapdrm should be flattened into >> a single drm driver, then net result would be a drop in # of lines of > > It seems that you proper to use duplicated driver. I mean... do you s/proper/prefer > proper that omapdss driver is placed in drm framework? Otherwise, is s/proper/prefer > there any way that omapdss and omapdrm can be flattened into a single > drm driver without moving omapdss into drm framework? As I mentioned > earlier, we wanted to reuse the existing panel driver so Exynos drm > framework has the layer, wrappers to connector and encoder. Of course, > for this, we have TODO works yet, and I still think it's better way to > keep the wrapper if we should reuse the existing panel drivers. > > The below would be one design for the case, > > > lcd panel drivers > \ | / > drm framework ----- drm_bridge > / | \ > crtc > drivers(display controller or hdmi) > > > A header file of drm_bridge includes drm_panel structure having some > callbacks related to connector, and some function to register crtc and > panel driver's requests to the drm_bridge object. And the header file > can be included in the existing panel drivers. In other words, > drm_bridge will connect drm driver and lcd class based panel drivers. > > struct drm_bridge { > struct list_head list; > unsigned int type; > struct drm_device *drm_dev; > struct drm_panel *panel_ops; > ... > int (*drm_create_enc_conn)(....); > }; > > A drm_bridge object has drm_panel ops and drm_create_enc_conn > callback. And once the crtc driver calls register function of the > drm_bridge with drm_create_enc_conn callback pointer, a drm_crtc is > created, and once the panel driver calls the register function with > drm_panel ops, a encoder and a connector are created. At this time, > drm_fb_helper_initial_config() can be called appropriately to connect > crtc and connector, and to display framebuffer on lcd panel. > > The above is just my opinion for the case, and we are testing this way > implementing it internally. > > Thanks, > Inki Dae > >> code. I wish there were folks like the Sean and Stéphane who cared >> enough to do this for omapdrm ;-) >> >> Other drivers have some modularity to separate code that is >> significantly different across genarations (but what form that takes >> differs depending on what how the hw differs across generations). >> This isn't a bad thing. But you need to look at the end result. For >> example how I split out the phy code for the mdp4 code in msm (hdmi >> and dsi phy differ between otherwise similar 28nm and 45nm parts, but >> the rest of the display controller blocks are basically the same). >> >> BR, >> -R >> _______________________________________________ >> dri-devel mailing list >> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I think we need to start considering a framework where subdrivers just >>>>>> add drm objects themselves, then the toplevel node is responsible for >>>>>> knowing that everything for the current configuration is loaded. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It would be nice to specify the various pieces in dt, then have some >>>>> type of drm notifier to the toplevel node when everything has been >>>>> probed. Doing it in the dt would allow standalone drm_bridge/drm_panel >>>>> drivers to be transparent as far as the device's drm driver is >>>>> concerned. >>>>> >>>>> Sean >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I realise we may need to make changes to the core drm to allow this >>>>>> but we should probably start to create a strategy for fixing the API >>>>>> issues that this throws up. >>>>>> >>>>>> Note I'm not yet advocating for dynamic addition of nodes once the >>>>>> device is in use, or removing them. >>>>>> >>>> >>>> I do wonder if we had some sort of tag in the device tree for any nodes >>>> involved in the display, and the core drm layer would read that list, >>>> and when every driver registers tick things off, and when the last one >>>> joins we get a callback and init the drm layer, we'd of course have the >>>> basic drm layer setup prior to that so we can add the objects as the >>>> drivers load. It might make development a bit trickier as you'd need >>>> to make sure someone claimed ownership of all the bits for init to proceed. >>>> >>> >>> Yeah, that's basically what the strawman looked like in my head. >>> >>> Instead of a property in each node, I was thinking of having a >>> separate gfx pipe nodes that would have dt pointers to the various >>> pieces involved in that pipe. This would allow us to associate >>> standalone entities like bridges and panels with encoders in dt w/o >>> doing it in the drm code. I *think* this should be Ok with the dt guys >>> since it is still describing the hardware, but I think we'd have to >>> make sure it wasn't drm-specific. >>> >> >> I suppose the question is how much dynamic pipeline construction there is, >> >> even on things like radeon and i915 we have dynamic clock generator to >> crtc to encoder setups, so I worry about static lists per-pipe, so I still >> think just stating all these devices are needed for display and a list of valid >> interconnections between them, then we can have the generic code model >> drm crtc/encoders/connectors on that list, and construct the possible_crtcs >> /possible_clones etc at that stage. >> > > I'm, without excuse, hopeless at devicetree, so there are probably > some violations, but something like: This is definitely worth discussing. I know device-tree but not DRM so let's see if we can figure this out together. :) > > display-pipelines { > required-elements = <&bridge-a &panel-a &encoder-x &encoder-y > &crtc-x &crtc-y>; What's this supposed to mean? Are all these elements required to get DRM up on this particular platform? Or are they just enumerating all the possible devices that might be involved? > pipe1 { > bridge = <&bridge-a>; > encoder = <&encoder-x>; > crtc = <&crtc-y>; > }; > pipe2 { > encoder = <&encoder-x>; > crtc = <&crtc-x>; > }; > pipe3 { > panel = <&panel-a>; > encoder = <&encoder-y>; > crtc = <&crtc-y>; > }; Maybe it's the use of pipe as a keyword that's confusing me here, and my lack of DRM knowledge, but wouldn't it make more sense to focus on output connectors here? I.e. describe the outputs such as eDP, LVDS, HDMI. The bridge, such as edp-to-lvds, should possibly be specified under the edp node instead of in the drm node here. Also, while the hardware can allow a very flexible connection of pipes, I'm guessing that in reality nearly all usage of these will follow a few common patterns, so maybe it's not required to be able to describe the full graph in device tree? > I'm tempted to add connector to the pipe nodes as well, so it's > obvious which connector should be used in cases where multiple > entities in the pipe implement drm_connector. However, I'm not sure if > that would be NACKed by dt people. As mentioned above, it might make sense to turn it around and describe it around the connectors instead of the pipes. > I'm also not sure if there are too many combinations for i915 and > radeon to make this unreasonable. I suppose those devices could just > use required-elements and leave the pipe nodes out. -Olof
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think we need to start considering a framework where subdrivers just >>>>>>> add drm objects themselves, then the toplevel node is responsible for >>>>>>> knowing that everything for the current configuration is loaded. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It would be nice to specify the various pieces in dt, then have some >>>>>> type of drm notifier to the toplevel node when everything has been >>>>>> probed. Doing it in the dt would allow standalone drm_bridge/drm_panel >>>>>> drivers to be transparent as far as the device's drm driver is >>>>>> concerned. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sean >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I realise we may need to make changes to the core drm to allow this >>>>>>> but we should probably start to create a strategy for fixing the API >>>>>>> issues that this throws up. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Note I'm not yet advocating for dynamic addition of nodes once the >>>>>>> device is in use, or removing them. >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I do wonder if we had some sort of tag in the device tree for any nodes >>>>> involved in the display, and the core drm layer would read that list, >>>>> and when every driver registers tick things off, and when the last one >>>>> joins we get a callback and init the drm layer, we'd of course have the >>>>> basic drm layer setup prior to that so we can add the objects as the >>>>> drivers load. It might make development a bit trickier as you'd need >>>>> to make sure someone claimed ownership of all the bits for init to proceed. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yeah, that's basically what the strawman looked like in my head. >>>> >>>> Instead of a property in each node, I was thinking of having a >>>> separate gfx pipe nodes that would have dt pointers to the various >>>> pieces involved in that pipe. This would allow us to associate >>>> standalone entities like bridges and panels with encoders in dt w/o >>>> doing it in the drm code. I *think* this should be Ok with the dt guys >>>> since it is still describing the hardware, but I think we'd have to >>>> make sure it wasn't drm-specific. >>>> >>> >>> I suppose the question is how much dynamic pipeline construction there is, >>> >>> even on things like radeon and i915 we have dynamic clock generator to >>> crtc to encoder setups, so I worry about static lists per-pipe, so I still >>> think just stating all these devices are needed for display and a list of valid >>> interconnections between them, then we can have the generic code model >>> drm crtc/encoders/connectors on that list, and construct the possible_crtcs >>> /possible_clones etc at that stage. >>> >> >> I'm, without excuse, hopeless at devicetree, so there are probably >> some violations, but something like: > > This is definitely worth discussing. I know device-tree but not DRM so > let's see if we can figure this out together. :) > >> >> display-pipelines { >> required-elements = <&bridge-a &panel-a &encoder-x &encoder-y >> &crtc-x &crtc-y>; > > What's this supposed to mean? Are all these elements required to get > DRM up on this particular platform? Or are they just enumerating all > the possible devices that might be involved? > I was thinking that these would be all of the pieces that are required before drm is loaded. So, in the multiple device-drivers scenario, these would all register themselves with drm on probe. drm would tick them off the list as they probe until all have been accounted for. At this point, drm would load and call them back with a pointer to the drm_device. In the case where there is One True DRM Driver, where the various devices are not standalone drivers (see ptn3460 patch for this model), this would be the list of devices that drm is responsible for linking in. To do this, it would need to call one hook when it probes (so it can be deferred), and than an initialization hook later once everything is probed and ready. >> pipe1 { >> bridge = <&bridge-a>; >> encoder = <&encoder-x>; >> crtc = <&crtc-y>; >> }; >> pipe2 { >> encoder = <&encoder-x>; >> crtc = <&crtc-x>; >> }; >> pipe3 { >> panel = <&panel-a>; >> encoder = <&encoder-y>; >> crtc = <&crtc-y>; >> }; > > Maybe it's the use of pipe as a keyword that's confusing me here, and > my lack of DRM knowledge, but wouldn't it make more sense to focus on > output connectors here? I.e. describe the outputs such as eDP, LVDS, > HDMI. The bridge, such as edp-to-lvds, should possibly be specified > under the edp node instead of in the drm node here. > Sure, I think "pipeX" is poor nomenclature on my part. It would make more sense to have these node names translate to the actual connector name. I was trying to be a bit opaque/non-drm-specific to avoid describing software in the devicetree. Again, using the ptn driver as an example, something like: LVDS-1 { connector = <&ptn3460>; bridge = <&ptn3460>; encoder = <&display-port-controller>; crtc = <&fimd>; }; > Also, while the hardware can allow a very flexible connection of > pipes, I'm guessing that in reality nearly all usage of these will > follow a few common patterns, so maybe it's not required to be able to > describe the full graph in device tree? > I suspect you're correct. I think we can make bridge/encoder/crtc arrays such that you can describe multiple pipes within one connector. Admittedly, I have a very narrow view of the different hardware that might use this, so there might be a better way. Sean >> I'm tempted to add connector to the pipe nodes as well, so it's >> obvious which connector should be used in cases where multiple >> entities in the pipe implement drm_connector. However, I'm not sure if >> that would be NACKed by dt people. > > As mentioned above, it might make sense to turn it around and describe > it around the connectors instead of the pipes. > >> I'm also not sure if there are too many combinations for i915 and >> radeon to make this unreasonable. I suppose those devices could just >> use required-elements and leave the pipe nodes out. > > > -Olof
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 3:46 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: > 2013/10/23 Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>: >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: >>> Look at omapdrm, nouveau, and radeon drm drivers. >> >> >> btw, please don't look at omapdrm as a "good" example in this regard. >> The layering is really not a good idea and for a long time caused a >> lot of problems, which we essentially solved by bypassing parts of the >> layering. I still think omapdss and omapdrm should be flattened into >> a single drm driver, then net result would be a drop in # of lines of > > It seems that you proper to use duplicated driver. I mean... do you > proper that omapdss driver is placed in drm framework? Otherwise, is > there any way that omapdss and omapdrm can be flattened into a single > drm driver without moving omapdss into drm framework? As I mentioned > earlier, we wanted to reuse the existing panel driver so Exynos drm > framework has the layer, wrappers to connector and encoder. Of course, > for this, we have TODO works yet, and I still think it's better way to > keep the wrapper if we should reuse the existing panel drivers. If it were my decision, I would duplicate (+refactor) the code into drm.. there ends up being some duplication between fbdev and drm, but the benefit is less risk of breaking other subsystem (fbdev) in the short term and more flexibility to refactor things to fit better into how drm/kms works. In the long term, fbdev stops being something we care about, so the duplicate code is just a transient problem. But what ends up in drm we live with for a long time, so it is easier in the long run to not have to care about both fbdev and drm with the same code. BR, -R > The below would be one design for the case, > > > lcd panel drivers > \ | / > drm framework ----- drm_bridge > / | \ > crtc > drivers(display controller or hdmi) > > > A header file of drm_bridge includes drm_panel structure having some > callbacks related to connector, and some function to register crtc and > panel driver's requests to the drm_bridge object. And the header file > can be included in the existing panel drivers. In other words, > drm_bridge will connect drm driver and lcd class based panel drivers. > > struct drm_bridge { > struct list_head list; > unsigned int type; > struct drm_device *drm_dev; > struct drm_panel *panel_ops; > ... > int (*drm_create_enc_conn)(....); > }; > > A drm_bridge object has drm_panel ops and drm_create_enc_conn > callback. And once the crtc driver calls register function of the > drm_bridge with drm_create_enc_conn callback pointer, a drm_crtc is > created, and once the panel driver calls the register function with > drm_panel ops, a encoder and a connector are created. At this time, > drm_fb_helper_initial_config() can be called appropriately to connect > crtc and connector, and to display framebuffer on lcd panel. > > The above is just my opinion for the case, and we are testing this way > implementing it internally. > > Thanks, > Inki Dae > >> code. I wish there were folks like the Sean and Stéphane who cared >> enough to do this for omapdrm ;-) >> >> Other drivers have some modularity to separate code that is >> significantly different across genarations (but what form that takes >> differs depending on what how the hw differs across generations). >> This isn't a bad thing. But you need to look at the end result. For >> example how I split out the phy code for the mdp4 code in msm (hdmi >> and dsi phy differ between otherwise similar 28nm and 45nm parts, but >> the rest of the display controller blocks are basically the same). >> >> BR, >> -R >> _______________________________________________ >> dri-devel mailing list >> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
Hi, On Wednesday 23 of October 2013 12:09:06 Sean Paul wrote: > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> I think we need to start considering a framework where subdrivers > >>>>> just > >>>>> add drm objects themselves, then the toplevel node is responsible > >>>>> for > >>>>> knowing that everything for the current configuration is loaded. > >>>> > >>>> It would be nice to specify the various pieces in dt, then have > >>>> some > >>>> type of drm notifier to the toplevel node when everything has been > >>>> probed. Doing it in the dt would allow standalone > >>>> drm_bridge/drm_panel > >>>> drivers to be transparent as far as the device's drm driver is > >>>> concerned. > >>>> > >>>> Sean > >>>> > >>>>> I realise we may need to make changes to the core drm to allow > >>>>> this > >>>>> but we should probably start to create a strategy for fixing the > >>>>> API > >>>>> issues that this throws up. > >>>>> > >>>>> Note I'm not yet advocating for dynamic addition of nodes once the > >>>>> device is in use, or removing them. > >>> > >>> I do wonder if we had some sort of tag in the device tree for any > >>> nodes > >>> involved in the display, and the core drm layer would read that > >>> list, > >>> and when every driver registers tick things off, and when the last > >>> one > >>> joins we get a callback and init the drm layer, we'd of course have > >>> the > >>> basic drm layer setup prior to that so we can add the objects as the > >>> drivers load. It might make development a bit trickier as you'd need > >>> to make sure someone claimed ownership of all the bits for init to > >>> proceed.>> > >> Yeah, that's basically what the strawman looked like in my head. > >> > >> Instead of a property in each node, I was thinking of having a > >> separate gfx pipe nodes that would have dt pointers to the various > >> pieces involved in that pipe. This would allow us to associate > >> standalone entities like bridges and panels with encoders in dt w/o > >> doing it in the drm code. I *think* this should be Ok with the dt > >> guys > >> since it is still describing the hardware, but I think we'd have to > >> make sure it wasn't drm-specific. > > > > I suppose the question is how much dynamic pipeline construction there > > is, > > > > even on things like radeon and i915 we have dynamic clock generator to > > crtc to encoder setups, so I worry about static lists per-pipe, so I > > still think just stating all these devices are needed for display and > > a list of valid interconnections between them, then we can have the > > generic code model drm crtc/encoders/connectors on that list, and > > construct the possible_crtcs /possible_clones etc at that stage. > > I'm, without excuse, hopeless at devicetree, so there are probably > some violations, but something like: > > display-pipelines { > required-elements = <&bridge-a &panel-a &encoder-x &encoder-y > &crtc-x &crtc-y>; > pipe1 { > bridge = <&bridge-a>; > encoder = <&encoder-x>; > crtc = <&crtc-y>; > }; > pipe2 { > encoder = <&encoder-x>; > crtc = <&crtc-x>; > }; > pipe3 { > panel = <&panel-a>; > encoder = <&encoder-y>; > crtc = <&crtc-y>; > }; > }; > > I'm tempted to add connector to the pipe nodes as well, so it's > obvious which connector should be used in cases where multiple > entities in the pipe implement drm_connector. However, I'm not sure if > that would be NACKed by dt people. > > I'm also not sure if there are too many combinations for i915 and > radeon to make this unreasonable. I suppose those devices could just > use required-elements and leave the pipe nodes out. Just to put my two cents in, as one of the people involved into "the device tree movement", I'd say that instead of creating artifical entities, such as display-pipelines and all of the pipeX'es, device tree should represent relations between nodes. According to the generic DT bindings we already have for video-interfaces [1] your example connection layout would look as follows: panel-a { /* Single input port */ port { panel_a: endpoint@0 { remote-endpoint = <&encoder_y_out>; }; }; }; bridge-a { ports { /* Input port */ port@0 { bridge_a_in: endpoint@0 { remote-endpoint = <&encoder_x_out>; }; }; /* * Since it is a bridge, port@1 should be probably * present here as well... */ }; }; encoder-x { ports { /* Input port */ port@0 { encoder_x_in0: endpoint@0 { remote-endpoint = <&crtc_x>; }; encoder_x_in1: endpoint@1 { remote-endpoint = <&crtc_y_out0>; }; }; /* Output port */ port@1 { encoder_x_out: endpoint@0 { remote-endpoint = <&bridge_a_in>; }; }; }; }; encoder-y { ports { /* Input port */ port@0 { encoder_y_in: endpoint@0 { remote-endpoint = <&encoder_y_in>; }; }; /* Output port */ port@1 { encoder_y_out: endpoint@0 { remote-endpoint = <&panel_a>; }; }; }; }; crtc-x { /* Single output port */ port { crtc_x: endpoint@0 { remote-endpoint = <&encoder_x_in0>; }; }; }; crtc-y { /* Single output port */ port { crtc_y_out0: endpoint@0 { remote-endpoint = <&encoder_x_in1>; }; crtc_y_out1: endpoint@1 { remote-endpoint = <&encoder_y_in>; }; }; }; If I didn't make any typos, then the nodes above should not only represent fully the layout of your sample video pipelines, but also map connections between video entities with their physical endpoints, allowing respective drivers to properly configure any muxes based purely on DT data. Of course this also includes dependencies between all display entities. [1] Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/video-interfaces.txt Best regards, Tomasz
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Wednesday 23 of October 2013 12:09:06 Sean Paul wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>> I think we need to start considering a framework where subdrivers >> >>>>> just >> >>>>> add drm objects themselves, then the toplevel node is responsible >> >>>>> for >> >>>>> knowing that everything for the current configuration is loaded. >> >>>> >> >>>> It would be nice to specify the various pieces in dt, then have >> >>>> some >> >>>> type of drm notifier to the toplevel node when everything has been >> >>>> probed. Doing it in the dt would allow standalone >> >>>> drm_bridge/drm_panel >> >>>> drivers to be transparent as far as the device's drm driver is >> >>>> concerned. >> >>>> >> >>>> Sean >> >>>> >> >>>>> I realise we may need to make changes to the core drm to allow >> >>>>> this >> >>>>> but we should probably start to create a strategy for fixing the >> >>>>> API >> >>>>> issues that this throws up. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Note I'm not yet advocating for dynamic addition of nodes once the >> >>>>> device is in use, or removing them. >> >>> >> >>> I do wonder if we had some sort of tag in the device tree for any >> >>> nodes >> >>> involved in the display, and the core drm layer would read that >> >>> list, >> >>> and when every driver registers tick things off, and when the last >> >>> one >> >>> joins we get a callback and init the drm layer, we'd of course have >> >>> the >> >>> basic drm layer setup prior to that so we can add the objects as the >> >>> drivers load. It might make development a bit trickier as you'd need >> >>> to make sure someone claimed ownership of all the bits for init to >> >>> proceed.>> >> >> Yeah, that's basically what the strawman looked like in my head. >> >> >> >> Instead of a property in each node, I was thinking of having a >> >> separate gfx pipe nodes that would have dt pointers to the various >> >> pieces involved in that pipe. This would allow us to associate >> >> standalone entities like bridges and panels with encoders in dt w/o >> >> doing it in the drm code. I *think* this should be Ok with the dt >> >> guys >> >> since it is still describing the hardware, but I think we'd have to >> >> make sure it wasn't drm-specific. >> > >> > I suppose the question is how much dynamic pipeline construction there >> > is, >> > >> > even on things like radeon and i915 we have dynamic clock generator to >> > crtc to encoder setups, so I worry about static lists per-pipe, so I >> > still think just stating all these devices are needed for display and >> > a list of valid interconnections between them, then we can have the >> > generic code model drm crtc/encoders/connectors on that list, and >> > construct the possible_crtcs /possible_clones etc at that stage. >> >> I'm, without excuse, hopeless at devicetree, so there are probably >> some violations, but something like: >> >> display-pipelines { >> required-elements = <&bridge-a &panel-a &encoder-x &encoder-y >> &crtc-x &crtc-y>; >> pipe1 { >> bridge = <&bridge-a>; >> encoder = <&encoder-x>; >> crtc = <&crtc-y>; >> }; >> pipe2 { >> encoder = <&encoder-x>; >> crtc = <&crtc-x>; >> }; >> pipe3 { >> panel = <&panel-a>; >> encoder = <&encoder-y>; >> crtc = <&crtc-y>; >> }; >> }; >> >> I'm tempted to add connector to the pipe nodes as well, so it's >> obvious which connector should be used in cases where multiple >> entities in the pipe implement drm_connector. However, I'm not sure if >> that would be NACKed by dt people. >> >> I'm also not sure if there are too many combinations for i915 and >> radeon to make this unreasonable. I suppose those devices could just >> use required-elements and leave the pipe nodes out. > > Just to put my two cents in, as one of the people involved into "the > device tree movement", I'd say that instead of creating artifical > entities, such as display-pipelines and all of the pipeX'es, device tree > should represent relations between nodes. > > According to the generic DT bindings we already have for video-interfaces > [1] your example connection layout would look as follows: > > panel-a { > /* Single input port */ > port { > panel_a: endpoint@0 { > remote-endpoint = <&encoder_y_out>; > }; > }; > }; > > bridge-a { > ports { > /* Input port */ > port@0 { > bridge_a_in: endpoint@0 { > remote-endpoint = <&encoder_x_out>; > }; > }; > > /* > * Since it is a bridge, port@1 should be probably > * present here as well... > */ > }; > }; > > encoder-x { > ports { > /* Input port */ > port@0 { > encoder_x_in0: endpoint@0 { > remote-endpoint = <&crtc_x>; > }; > > encoder_x_in1: endpoint@1 { > remote-endpoint = <&crtc_y_out0>; > }; > }; > > /* Output port */ > port@1 { > encoder_x_out: endpoint@0 { > remote-endpoint = <&bridge_a_in>; > }; > }; > }; > }; > > encoder-y { > ports { > /* Input port */ > port@0 { > encoder_y_in: endpoint@0 { > remote-endpoint = <&encoder_y_in>; > }; > }; > > /* Output port */ > port@1 { > encoder_y_out: endpoint@0 { > remote-endpoint = <&panel_a>; > }; > }; > }; > }; > > crtc-x { > /* Single output port */ > port { > crtc_x: endpoint@0 { > remote-endpoint = <&encoder_x_in0>; > }; > }; > }; > > crtc-y { > /* Single output port */ > port { > crtc_y_out0: endpoint@0 { > remote-endpoint = <&encoder_x_in1>; > }; > > crtc_y_out1: endpoint@1 { > remote-endpoint = <&encoder_y_in>; > }; > }; > }; > > If I didn't make any typos, then the nodes above should not only represent > fully the layout of your sample video pipelines, but also map connections > between video entities with their physical endpoints, allowing respective > drivers to properly configure any muxes based purely on DT data. Of course > this also includes dependencies between all display entities. It's a very deeply nested structure, I'm not sure there's a need to make a ports {} subnode really. Also, I don't know if it makes sense to always name it remote-endpoint, or to use a more flexible name depending on what is actually connected, over which bus, etc. But overall this looks sane-ish. -Olof
On Tuesday 29 of October 2013 12:19:35 Olof Johansson wrote: > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Wednesday 23 of October 2013 12:09:06 Sean Paul wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>>>> I think we need to start considering a framework where > >> >>>>> subdrivers > >> >>>>> just > >> >>>>> add drm objects themselves, then the toplevel node is > >> >>>>> responsible > >> >>>>> for > >> >>>>> knowing that everything for the current configuration is > >> >>>>> loaded. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> It would be nice to specify the various pieces in dt, then have > >> >>>> some > >> >>>> type of drm notifier to the toplevel node when everything has > >> >>>> been > >> >>>> probed. Doing it in the dt would allow standalone > >> >>>> drm_bridge/drm_panel > >> >>>> drivers to be transparent as far as the device's drm driver is > >> >>>> concerned. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Sean > >> >>>> > >> >>>>> I realise we may need to make changes to the core drm to allow > >> >>>>> this > >> >>>>> but we should probably start to create a strategy for fixing > >> >>>>> the > >> >>>>> API > >> >>>>> issues that this throws up. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Note I'm not yet advocating for dynamic addition of nodes once > >> >>>>> the > >> >>>>> device is in use, or removing them. > >> >>> > >> >>> I do wonder if we had some sort of tag in the device tree for any > >> >>> nodes > >> >>> involved in the display, and the core drm layer would read that > >> >>> list, > >> >>> and when every driver registers tick things off, and when the > >> >>> last > >> >>> one > >> >>> joins we get a callback and init the drm layer, we'd of course > >> >>> have > >> >>> the > >> >>> basic drm layer setup prior to that so we can add the objects as > >> >>> the > >> >>> drivers load. It might make development a bit trickier as you'd > >> >>> need > >> >>> to make sure someone claimed ownership of all the bits for init > >> >>> to > >> >>> proceed.>> > >> >> > >> >> Yeah, that's basically what the strawman looked like in my head. > >> >> > >> >> Instead of a property in each node, I was thinking of having a > >> >> separate gfx pipe nodes that would have dt pointers to the various > >> >> pieces involved in that pipe. This would allow us to associate > >> >> standalone entities like bridges and panels with encoders in dt > >> >> w/o > >> >> doing it in the drm code. I *think* this should be Ok with the dt > >> >> guys > >> >> since it is still describing the hardware, but I think we'd have > >> >> to > >> >> make sure it wasn't drm-specific. > >> > > >> > I suppose the question is how much dynamic pipeline construction > >> > there > >> > is, > >> > > >> > even on things like radeon and i915 we have dynamic clock generator > >> > to > >> > crtc to encoder setups, so I worry about static lists per-pipe, so > >> > I > >> > still think just stating all these devices are needed for display > >> > and > >> > a list of valid interconnections between them, then we can have the > >> > generic code model drm crtc/encoders/connectors on that list, and > >> > construct the possible_crtcs /possible_clones etc at that stage. > >> > >> I'm, without excuse, hopeless at devicetree, so there are probably > >> some violations, but something like: > >> > >> display-pipelines { > >> > >> required-elements = <&bridge-a &panel-a &encoder-x &encoder-y > >> > >> &crtc-x &crtc-y>; > >> > >> pipe1 { > >> > >> bridge = <&bridge-a>; > >> encoder = <&encoder-x>; > >> crtc = <&crtc-y>; > >> > >> }; > >> pipe2 { > >> > >> encoder = <&encoder-x>; > >> crtc = <&crtc-x>; > >> > >> }; > >> pipe3 { > >> > >> panel = <&panel-a>; > >> encoder = <&encoder-y>; > >> crtc = <&crtc-y>; > >> > >> }; > >> > >> }; > >> > >> I'm tempted to add connector to the pipe nodes as well, so it's > >> obvious which connector should be used in cases where multiple > >> entities in the pipe implement drm_connector. However, I'm not sure > >> if > >> that would be NACKed by dt people. > >> > >> I'm also not sure if there are too many combinations for i915 and > >> radeon to make this unreasonable. I suppose those devices could just > >> use required-elements and leave the pipe nodes out. > > > > Just to put my two cents in, as one of the people involved into "the > > device tree movement", I'd say that instead of creating artifical > > entities, such as display-pipelines and all of the pipeX'es, device > > tree should represent relations between nodes. > > > > According to the generic DT bindings we already have for > > video-interfaces [1] your example connection layout would look as > > follows: > > > > panel-a { > > > > /* Single input port */ > > port { > > > > panel_a: endpoint@0 { > > > > remote-endpoint = <&encoder_y_out>; > > > > }; > > > > }; > > > > }; > > > > bridge-a { > > > > ports { > > > > /* Input port */ > > port@0 { > > > > bridge_a_in: endpoint@0 { > > > > remote-endpoint = <&encoder_x_out>; > > > > }; > > > > }; > > > > /* > > > > * Since it is a bridge, port@1 should be probably > > * present here as well... > > */ > > > > }; > > > > }; > > > > encoder-x { > > > > ports { > > > > /* Input port */ > > port@0 { > > > > encoder_x_in0: endpoint@0 { > > > > remote-endpoint = <&crtc_x>; > > > > }; > > > > encoder_x_in1: endpoint@1 { > > > > remote-endpoint = <&crtc_y_out0>; > > > > }; > > > > }; > > > > /* Output port */ > > port@1 { > > > > encoder_x_out: endpoint@0 { > > > > remote-endpoint = <&bridge_a_in>; > > > > }; > > > > }; > > > > }; > > > > }; > > > > encoder-y { > > > > ports { > > > > /* Input port */ > > port@0 { > > > > encoder_y_in: endpoint@0 { > > > > remote-endpoint = <&encoder_y_in>; > > > > }; > > > > }; > > > > /* Output port */ > > port@1 { > > > > encoder_y_out: endpoint@0 { > > > > remote-endpoint = <&panel_a>; > > > > }; > > > > }; > > > > }; > > > > }; > > > > crtc-x { > > > > /* Single output port */ > > port { > > > > crtc_x: endpoint@0 { > > > > remote-endpoint = <&encoder_x_in0>; > > > > }; > > > > }; > > > > }; > > > > crtc-y { > > > > /* Single output port */ > > port { > > > > crtc_y_out0: endpoint@0 { > > > > remote-endpoint = <&encoder_x_in1>; > > > > }; > > > > crtc_y_out1: endpoint@1 { > > > > remote-endpoint = <&encoder_y_in>; > > > > }; > > > > }; > > > > }; > > > > If I didn't make any typos, then the nodes above should not only > > represent fully the layout of your sample video pipelines, but also > > map connections between video entities with their physical endpoints, > > allowing respective drivers to properly configure any muxes based > > purely on DT data. Of course this also includes dependencies between > > all display entities. > > It's a very deeply nested structure, I'm not sure there's a need to > make a ports {} subnode really. > > Also, I don't know if it makes sense to always name it > remote-endpoint, or to use a more flexible name depending on what is > actually connected, over which bus, etc. > > But overall this looks sane-ish. I fully agree with you. Personally I would take a bit different design decisions when designing this bindings, but here I'm just pointing an already defined binding that should suit the needs described in this thread, to avoid reinventing the wheel. Best regards, Tomasz
Hi, On 29/10/13 20:23, Tomasz Figa wrote: >> It's a very deeply nested structure, I'm not sure there's a need to >> > make a ports {} subnode really. >> > >> > Also, I don't know if it makes sense to always name it >> > remote-endpoint, or to use a more flexible name depending on what is >> > actually connected, over which bus, etc. I have been thinking about a 'bus_type' as an 'endpoint' node property. Currently the data bus type is derived from selected properties in endpoint node, which is IMO not good enough. I'm not sure if naming 'remote-endpoint' differently would be helpful, as it is now it seems easier to write a generic links parser. Nevertheless I wish we have defined a bit simplified option in this binding right from the beginning. >> > But overall this looks sane-ish. > > I fully agree with you. Personally I would take a bit different design > decisions when designing this bindings, but here I'm just pointing an > already defined binding that should suit the needs described in this > thread, to avoid reinventing the wheel. The 'ports' node is optional. It needs to be used only if, e.g. bridge-a node contains device child nodes and these sub-nodes use 'reg' property. In such case #address-cells, #size-cells properties for 'port' nodes could be conflicting with those for the device child nodes. Thanks, Sylwester
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Wednesday 23 of October 2013 12:09:06 Sean Paul wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>> I think we need to start considering a framework where subdrivers >> >>>>> just >> >>>>> add drm objects themselves, then the toplevel node is responsible >> >>>>> for >> >>>>> knowing that everything for the current configuration is loaded. >> >>>> >> >>>> It would be nice to specify the various pieces in dt, then have >> >>>> some >> >>>> type of drm notifier to the toplevel node when everything has been >> >>>> probed. Doing it in the dt would allow standalone >> >>>> drm_bridge/drm_panel >> >>>> drivers to be transparent as far as the device's drm driver is >> >>>> concerned. >> >>>> >> >>>> Sean >> >>>> >> >>>>> I realise we may need to make changes to the core drm to allow >> >>>>> this >> >>>>> but we should probably start to create a strategy for fixing the >> >>>>> API >> >>>>> issues that this throws up. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Note I'm not yet advocating for dynamic addition of nodes once the >> >>>>> device is in use, or removing them. >> >>> >> >>> I do wonder if we had some sort of tag in the device tree for any >> >>> nodes >> >>> involved in the display, and the core drm layer would read that >> >>> list, >> >>> and when every driver registers tick things off, and when the last >> >>> one >> >>> joins we get a callback and init the drm layer, we'd of course have >> >>> the >> >>> basic drm layer setup prior to that so we can add the objects as the >> >>> drivers load. It might make development a bit trickier as you'd need >> >>> to make sure someone claimed ownership of all the bits for init to >> >>> proceed.>> >> >> Yeah, that's basically what the strawman looked like in my head. >> >> >> >> Instead of a property in each node, I was thinking of having a >> >> separate gfx pipe nodes that would have dt pointers to the various >> >> pieces involved in that pipe. This would allow us to associate >> >> standalone entities like bridges and panels with encoders in dt w/o >> >> doing it in the drm code. I *think* this should be Ok with the dt >> >> guys >> >> since it is still describing the hardware, but I think we'd have to >> >> make sure it wasn't drm-specific. >> > >> > I suppose the question is how much dynamic pipeline construction there >> > is, >> > >> > even on things like radeon and i915 we have dynamic clock generator to >> > crtc to encoder setups, so I worry about static lists per-pipe, so I >> > still think just stating all these devices are needed for display and >> > a list of valid interconnections between them, then we can have the >> > generic code model drm crtc/encoders/connectors on that list, and >> > construct the possible_crtcs /possible_clones etc at that stage. >> >> I'm, without excuse, hopeless at devicetree, so there are probably >> some violations, but something like: >> >> display-pipelines { >> required-elements = <&bridge-a &panel-a &encoder-x &encoder-y >> &crtc-x &crtc-y>; >> pipe1 { >> bridge = <&bridge-a>; >> encoder = <&encoder-x>; >> crtc = <&crtc-y>; >> }; >> pipe2 { >> encoder = <&encoder-x>; >> crtc = <&crtc-x>; >> }; >> pipe3 { >> panel = <&panel-a>; >> encoder = <&encoder-y>; >> crtc = <&crtc-y>; >> }; >> }; >> >> I'm tempted to add connector to the pipe nodes as well, so it's >> obvious which connector should be used in cases where multiple >> entities in the pipe implement drm_connector. However, I'm not sure if >> that would be NACKed by dt people. >> >> I'm also not sure if there are too many combinations for i915 and >> radeon to make this unreasonable. I suppose those devices could just >> use required-elements and leave the pipe nodes out. > > Just to put my two cents in, as one of the people involved into "the > device tree movement", I'd say that instead of creating artifical > entities, such as display-pipelines and all of the pipeX'es, device tree > should represent relations between nodes. > > According to the generic DT bindings we already have for video-interfaces > [1] your example connection layout would look as follows: > Hi Tomasz Thanks for sending this along. I think the general consensus is that each drm driver should be implemented as a singular driver. That is, N:1 binding to driver mapping, where there are N IP blocks. Optional devices (such as bridges, panels) probably make sense to spin off as standalone drivers. An example: exynos_drm_drv would be a platform_driver which implements drm_driver. On drm_load, it would enumerate the various dt nodes for its IP blocks and initialize them with direct calls (like exynos_drm_fimd_initialize). If the board uses a bridge (say for eDP->LVDS), that bridge driver would be a real driver with its own probe. I think the ideal situation would be for the drm layer to manage the standalone drivers in a way that is transparent to the main driver, such that it doesn't need to know which type of hardware can hang off it. It will need to know if one exists since it might need to forego creating a connector, but it need not know anything else about it. To accomplish this, I think we need: (1) Some way for drm to enumerate the standalone drivers, so it can know when all of them have been probed (2) A drm registration function that's called by the standalone drivers once they're probed, and a hook with drm_device pointer called during drm_load for them to register their drm_* implementations (3) Something that will allow for deferred probe if the main driver kicks off before the standalones are in, it would need to be called before drm_platform/pci_init I think we'll need to expand on the media bindings to achieve (1). I'm not sure what the best way to tease out the standalone devices would be. Sean > panel-a { > /* Single input port */ > port { > panel_a: endpoint@0 { > remote-endpoint = <&encoder_y_out>; > }; > }; > }; > > bridge-a { > ports { > /* Input port */ > port@0 { > bridge_a_in: endpoint@0 { > remote-endpoint = <&encoder_x_out>; > }; > }; > > /* > * Since it is a bridge, port@1 should be probably > * present here as well... > */ > }; > }; > > encoder-x { > ports { > /* Input port */ > port@0 { > encoder_x_in0: endpoint@0 { > remote-endpoint = <&crtc_x>; > }; > > encoder_x_in1: endpoint@1 { > remote-endpoint = <&crtc_y_out0>; > }; > }; > > /* Output port */ > port@1 { > encoder_x_out: endpoint@0 { > remote-endpoint = <&bridge_a_in>; > }; > }; > }; > }; > > encoder-y { > ports { > /* Input port */ > port@0 { > encoder_y_in: endpoint@0 { > remote-endpoint = <&encoder_y_in>; > }; > }; > > /* Output port */ > port@1 { > encoder_y_out: endpoint@0 { > remote-endpoint = <&panel_a>; > }; > }; > }; > }; > > crtc-x { > /* Single output port */ > port { > crtc_x: endpoint@0 { > remote-endpoint = <&encoder_x_in0>; > }; > }; > }; > > crtc-y { > /* Single output port */ > port { > crtc_y_out0: endpoint@0 { > remote-endpoint = <&encoder_x_in1>; > }; > > crtc_y_out1: endpoint@1 { > remote-endpoint = <&encoder_y_in>; > }; > }; > }; > > If I didn't make any typos, then the nodes above should not only represent > fully the layout of your sample video pipelines, but also map connections > between video entities with their physical endpoints, allowing respective > drivers to properly configure any muxes based purely on DT data. Of course > this also includes dependencies between all display entities. > > [1] Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/video-interfaces.txt > > Best regards, > Tomasz >
Hi Sean, On Tuesday 29 of October 2013 16:36:47 Sean Paul wrote: > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Wednesday 23 of October 2013 12:09:06 Sean Paul wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>>>> I think we need to start considering a framework where > >> >>>>> subdrivers > >> >>>>> just > >> >>>>> add drm objects themselves, then the toplevel node is > >> >>>>> responsible > >> >>>>> for > >> >>>>> knowing that everything for the current configuration is > >> >>>>> loaded. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> It would be nice to specify the various pieces in dt, then have > >> >>>> some > >> >>>> type of drm notifier to the toplevel node when everything has > >> >>>> been > >> >>>> probed. Doing it in the dt would allow standalone > >> >>>> drm_bridge/drm_panel > >> >>>> drivers to be transparent as far as the device's drm driver is > >> >>>> concerned. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Sean > >> >>>> > >> >>>>> I realise we may need to make changes to the core drm to allow > >> >>>>> this > >> >>>>> but we should probably start to create a strategy for fixing > >> >>>>> the > >> >>>>> API > >> >>>>> issues that this throws up. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Note I'm not yet advocating for dynamic addition of nodes once > >> >>>>> the > >> >>>>> device is in use, or removing them. > >> >>> > >> >>> I do wonder if we had some sort of tag in the device tree for any > >> >>> nodes > >> >>> involved in the display, and the core drm layer would read that > >> >>> list, > >> >>> and when every driver registers tick things off, and when the > >> >>> last > >> >>> one > >> >>> joins we get a callback and init the drm layer, we'd of course > >> >>> have > >> >>> the > >> >>> basic drm layer setup prior to that so we can add the objects as > >> >>> the > >> >>> drivers load. It might make development a bit trickier as you'd > >> >>> need > >> >>> to make sure someone claimed ownership of all the bits for init > >> >>> to > >> >>> proceed.>> > >> >> > >> >> Yeah, that's basically what the strawman looked like in my head. > >> >> > >> >> Instead of a property in each node, I was thinking of having a > >> >> separate gfx pipe nodes that would have dt pointers to the various > >> >> pieces involved in that pipe. This would allow us to associate > >> >> standalone entities like bridges and panels with encoders in dt > >> >> w/o > >> >> doing it in the drm code. I *think* this should be Ok with the dt > >> >> guys > >> >> since it is still describing the hardware, but I think we'd have > >> >> to > >> >> make sure it wasn't drm-specific. > >> > > >> > I suppose the question is how much dynamic pipeline construction > >> > there > >> > is, > >> > > >> > even on things like radeon and i915 we have dynamic clock generator > >> > to > >> > crtc to encoder setups, so I worry about static lists per-pipe, so > >> > I > >> > still think just stating all these devices are needed for display > >> > and > >> > a list of valid interconnections between them, then we can have the > >> > generic code model drm crtc/encoders/connectors on that list, and > >> > construct the possible_crtcs /possible_clones etc at that stage. > >> > >> I'm, without excuse, hopeless at devicetree, so there are probably > >> some violations, but something like: > >> > >> display-pipelines { > >> > >> required-elements = <&bridge-a &panel-a &encoder-x &encoder-y > >> > >> &crtc-x &crtc-y>; > >> > >> pipe1 { > >> > >> bridge = <&bridge-a>; > >> encoder = <&encoder-x>; > >> crtc = <&crtc-y>; > >> > >> }; > >> pipe2 { > >> > >> encoder = <&encoder-x>; > >> crtc = <&crtc-x>; > >> > >> }; > >> pipe3 { > >> > >> panel = <&panel-a>; > >> encoder = <&encoder-y>; > >> crtc = <&crtc-y>; > >> > >> }; > >> > >> }; > >> > >> I'm tempted to add connector to the pipe nodes as well, so it's > >> obvious which connector should be used in cases where multiple > >> entities in the pipe implement drm_connector. However, I'm not sure > >> if > >> that would be NACKed by dt people. > >> > >> I'm also not sure if there are too many combinations for i915 and > >> radeon to make this unreasonable. I suppose those devices could just > >> use required-elements and leave the pipe nodes out. > > > > Just to put my two cents in, as one of the people involved into "the > > device tree movement", I'd say that instead of creating artifical > > entities, such as display-pipelines and all of the pipeX'es, device > > tree should represent relations between nodes. > > > > According to the generic DT bindings we already have for > > video-interfaces > > [1] your example connection layout would look as follows: > Hi Tomasz > Thanks for sending this along. > > I think the general consensus is that each drm driver should be > implemented as a singular driver. That is, N:1 binding to driver > mapping, where there are N IP blocks. Optional devices (such as > bridges, panels) probably make sense to spin off as standalone > drivers. I believe this is a huge step backwards from current kernel design standards, which prefer modularity. Having multiple IPs being part of the DRM subsystem in a SoC, it would be nice to have the possibility to compile just a subset of support for them into the kernel and load rest of them as modules. (e.g. basic LCD controller on a mobile phone compiled in and external connectors, like HDMI as modules) Not even saying that from development perspective, a huge single driver would be much more difficult to test and debug, than several smaller drivers, which could be developed separately. Unless there is a misunderstanding here, I think this is broken. > An example: exynos_drm_drv would be a platform_driver which implements > drm_driver. On drm_load, it would enumerate the various dt nodes for > its IP blocks and initialize them with direct calls (like > exynos_drm_fimd_initialize). If the board uses a bridge (say for > eDP->LVDS), that bridge driver would be a real driver with its own > probe. > > I think the ideal situation would be for the drm layer to manage the > standalone drivers in a way that is transparent to the main driver, > such that it doesn't need to know which type of hardware can hang off > it. It will need to know if one exists since it might need to forego > creating a connector, but it need not know anything else about it. > > To accomplish this, I think we need: > (1) Some way for drm to enumerate the standalone drivers, so it can > know when all of them have been probed > (2) A drm registration function that's called by the standalone > drivers once they're probed, and a hook with drm_device pointer called > during drm_load for them to register their drm_* implementations > (3) Something that will allow for deferred probe if the main driver > kicks off before the standalones are in, it would need to be called > before drm_platform/pci_init > > I think we'll need to expand on the media bindings to achieve (1). Could you elaborate on why you think so? I believe the video interface bindings contain everything needed for this case, except, of course, some device/bus specific parts, but those are to be defined by separate device/bus specific bindings. Best regards, Tomasz
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Sean, > > On Tuesday 29 of October 2013 16:36:47 Sean Paul wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com> > wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > On Wednesday 23 of October 2013 12:09:06 Sean Paul wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> >>>>> I think we need to start considering a framework where >> >> >>>>> subdrivers >> >> >>>>> just >> >> >>>>> add drm objects themselves, then the toplevel node is >> >> >>>>> responsible >> >> >>>>> for >> >> >>>>> knowing that everything for the current configuration is >> >> >>>>> loaded. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> It would be nice to specify the various pieces in dt, then have >> >> >>>> some >> >> >>>> type of drm notifier to the toplevel node when everything has >> >> >>>> been >> >> >>>> probed. Doing it in the dt would allow standalone >> >> >>>> drm_bridge/drm_panel >> >> >>>> drivers to be transparent as far as the device's drm driver is >> >> >>>> concerned. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Sean >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>>> I realise we may need to make changes to the core drm to allow >> >> >>>>> this >> >> >>>>> but we should probably start to create a strategy for fixing >> >> >>>>> the >> >> >>>>> API >> >> >>>>> issues that this throws up. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Note I'm not yet advocating for dynamic addition of nodes once >> >> >>>>> the >> >> >>>>> device is in use, or removing them. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> I do wonder if we had some sort of tag in the device tree for any >> >> >>> nodes >> >> >>> involved in the display, and the core drm layer would read that >> >> >>> list, >> >> >>> and when every driver registers tick things off, and when the >> >> >>> last >> >> >>> one >> >> >>> joins we get a callback and init the drm layer, we'd of course >> >> >>> have >> >> >>> the >> >> >>> basic drm layer setup prior to that so we can add the objects as >> >> >>> the >> >> >>> drivers load. It might make development a bit trickier as you'd >> >> >>> need >> >> >>> to make sure someone claimed ownership of all the bits for init >> >> >>> to >> >> >>> proceed.>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Yeah, that's basically what the strawman looked like in my head. >> >> >> >> >> >> Instead of a property in each node, I was thinking of having a >> >> >> separate gfx pipe nodes that would have dt pointers to the various >> >> >> pieces involved in that pipe. This would allow us to associate >> >> >> standalone entities like bridges and panels with encoders in dt >> >> >> w/o >> >> >> doing it in the drm code. I *think* this should be Ok with the dt >> >> >> guys >> >> >> since it is still describing the hardware, but I think we'd have >> >> >> to >> >> >> make sure it wasn't drm-specific. >> >> > >> >> > I suppose the question is how much dynamic pipeline construction >> >> > there >> >> > is, >> >> > >> >> > even on things like radeon and i915 we have dynamic clock generator >> >> > to >> >> > crtc to encoder setups, so I worry about static lists per-pipe, so >> >> > I >> >> > still think just stating all these devices are needed for display >> >> > and >> >> > a list of valid interconnections between them, then we can have the >> >> > generic code model drm crtc/encoders/connectors on that list, and >> >> > construct the possible_crtcs /possible_clones etc at that stage. >> >> >> >> I'm, without excuse, hopeless at devicetree, so there are probably >> >> some violations, but something like: >> >> >> >> display-pipelines { >> >> >> >> required-elements = <&bridge-a &panel-a &encoder-x &encoder-y >> >> >> >> &crtc-x &crtc-y>; >> >> >> >> pipe1 { >> >> >> >> bridge = <&bridge-a>; >> >> encoder = <&encoder-x>; >> >> crtc = <&crtc-y>; >> >> >> >> }; >> >> pipe2 { >> >> >> >> encoder = <&encoder-x>; >> >> crtc = <&crtc-x>; >> >> >> >> }; >> >> pipe3 { >> >> >> >> panel = <&panel-a>; >> >> encoder = <&encoder-y>; >> >> crtc = <&crtc-y>; >> >> >> >> }; >> >> >> >> }; >> >> >> >> I'm tempted to add connector to the pipe nodes as well, so it's >> >> obvious which connector should be used in cases where multiple >> >> entities in the pipe implement drm_connector. However, I'm not sure >> >> if >> >> that would be NACKed by dt people. >> >> >> >> I'm also not sure if there are too many combinations for i915 and >> >> radeon to make this unreasonable. I suppose those devices could just >> >> use required-elements and leave the pipe nodes out. >> > >> > Just to put my two cents in, as one of the people involved into "the >> > device tree movement", I'd say that instead of creating artifical >> > entities, such as display-pipelines and all of the pipeX'es, device >> > tree should represent relations between nodes. >> > >> > According to the generic DT bindings we already have for >> > video-interfaces >> > [1] your example connection layout would look as follows: >> Hi Tomasz >> Thanks for sending this along. >> >> I think the general consensus is that each drm driver should be >> implemented as a singular driver. That is, N:1 binding to driver >> mapping, where there are N IP blocks. Optional devices (such as >> bridges, panels) probably make sense to spin off as standalone >> drivers. > > I believe this is a huge step backwards from current kernel design > standards, which prefer modularity. But it makes things behave in the way that userspace expects, which is more important. > Having multiple IPs being part of the DRM subsystem in a SoC, it would be > nice to have the possibility to compile just a subset of support for them > into the kernel and load rest of them as modules. (e.g. basic LCD > controller on a mobile phone compiled in and external connectors, like > HDMI as modules) I think I've mentioned before, that userspace is not prepared to deal w/ crtc/encoder/connector's dynamically appearing/disappearing. Perhaps there are ways to improve that, but I haven't come across hardware where the hdmi block can actually be dynamically removed. BR, -R > Not even saying that from development perspective, a huge single driver > would be much more difficult to test and debug, than several smaller > drivers, which could be developed separately. > > Unless there is a misunderstanding here, I think this is broken. > >> An example: exynos_drm_drv would be a platform_driver which implements >> drm_driver. On drm_load, it would enumerate the various dt nodes for >> its IP blocks and initialize them with direct calls (like >> exynos_drm_fimd_initialize). If the board uses a bridge (say for >> eDP->LVDS), that bridge driver would be a real driver with its own >> probe. >> >> I think the ideal situation would be for the drm layer to manage the >> standalone drivers in a way that is transparent to the main driver, >> such that it doesn't need to know which type of hardware can hang off >> it. It will need to know if one exists since it might need to forego >> creating a connector, but it need not know anything else about it. >> >> To accomplish this, I think we need: >> (1) Some way for drm to enumerate the standalone drivers, so it can >> know when all of them have been probed >> (2) A drm registration function that's called by the standalone >> drivers once they're probed, and a hook with drm_device pointer called >> during drm_load for them to register their drm_* implementations >> (3) Something that will allow for deferred probe if the main driver >> kicks off before the standalones are in, it would need to be called >> before drm_platform/pci_init >> >> I think we'll need to expand on the media bindings to achieve (1). > > Could you elaborate on why you think so? > > I believe the video interface bindings contain everything needed for this > case, except, of course, some device/bus specific parts, but those are to > be defined by separate device/bus specific bindings. > > Best regards, > Tomasz > > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
Hello, On Tuesday 29 October 2013 20:47:44 Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: > On 29/10/13 20:23, Tomasz Figa wrote: > > On Tuesday 29 of October 2013 12:19:35 Olof Johansson wrote: > > > It's a very deeply nested structure, I'm not sure there's a need to > > > make a ports {} subnode really. Agreed, this can be simplified. We've introduced the ports node to group multiple ports when the device tree node that contains them also has child devices (which is a pretty uncommon case). When this happens, we need potentially different #address-cells values for the ports and for the child devices. In all other case the ports node can be omitted and the port nodes placed directly as children of the device node. > > > Also, I don't know if it makes sense to always name it remote-endpoint, > > > or to use a more flexible name depending on what is actually connected, > > > over which bus, etc. > > I have been thinking about a 'bus_type' as an 'endpoint' node property. > Currently the data bus type is derived from selected properties in > endpoint node, which is IMO not good enough. I agree, a bus type would be useful. I've also been thinking about adding a direction property for ports, although that information could be considered as device driver knowledge. > I'm not sure if naming 'remote-endpoint' differently would be helpful, as it > is now it seems easier to write a generic links parser. > > Nevertheless I wish we have defined a bit simplified option in this binding > right from the beginning. It's not too late to clean it up and create a v2 :-) > >> > But overall this looks sane-ish. > > > > I fully agree with you. Personally I would take a bit different design > > decisions when designing this bindings, but here I'm just pointing an > > already defined binding that should suit the needs described in this > > thread, to avoid reinventing the wheel. > > The 'ports' node is optional. It needs to be used only if, e.g. bridge-a > node contains device child nodes and these sub-nodes use 'reg' property. > In such case #address-cells, #size-cells properties for 'port' nodes could > be conflicting with those for the device child nodes. I should have read Sylwester's e-mail completely before writing the same explanation above :-)
Hello, On Tuesday 29 October 2013 17:29:55 Rob Clark wrote: > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote: > > On Tuesday 29 of October 2013 16:36:47 Sean Paul wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote: > >> > On Wednesday 23 of October 2013 12:09:06 Sean Paul wrote: > >> >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Dave Airlie wrote: > >> >> >>>>> I think we need to start considering a framework where > >> >> >>>>> subdrivers just add drm objects themselves, then the toplevel > >> >> >>>>> node is responsible for knowing that everything for the current > >> >> >>>>> configuration is loaded. > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> It would be nice to specify the various pieces in dt, then have > >> >> >>>> some type of drm notifier to the toplevel node when everything > >> >> >>>> has been probed. Doing it in the dt would allow standalone > >> >> >>>> drm_bridge/drm_panel drivers to be transparent as far as the > >> >> >>>> device's drm driver is concerned. > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> Sean > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>>> I realise we may need to make changes to the core drm to allow > >> >> >>>>> this but we should probably start to create a strategy for > >> >> >>>>> fixing the API issues that this throws up. > >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> Note I'm not yet advocating for dynamic addition of nodes once > >> >> >>>>> the device is in use, or removing them. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> I do wonder if we had some sort of tag in the device tree for any > >> >> >>> nodes involved in the display, and the core drm layer would read > >> >> >>> that list, and when every driver registers tick things off, and > >> >> >>> when the last one joins we get a callback and init the drm layer, > >> >> >>> we'd of course have the basic drm layer setup prior to that so we > >> >> >>> can add the objects as the drivers load. It might make development > >> >> >>> a bit trickier as you'd need to make sure someone claimed > >> >> >>> ownership of all the bits for init to proceed. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Yeah, that's basically what the strawman looked like in my head. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Instead of a property in each node, I was thinking of having a > >> >> >> separate gfx pipe nodes that would have dt pointers to the various > >> >> >> pieces involved in that pipe. This would allow us to associate > >> >> >> standalone entities like bridges and panels with encoders in dt > >> >> >> w/o doing it in the drm code. I *think* this should be Ok with the > >> >> >> dt guys since it is still describing the hardware, but I think we'd > >> >> >> have to make sure it wasn't drm-specific. > >> >> > > >> >> > I suppose the question is how much dynamic pipeline construction > >> >> > there is, even on things like radeon and i915 we have dynamic clock > >> >> > generator to crtc to encoder setups, so I worry about static lists > >> >> > per-pipe, so I still think just stating all these devices are needed > >> >> > for display and a list of valid interconnections between them, then > >> >> > we can have the generic code model drm crtc/encoders/connectors on > >> >> > that list, and construct the possible_crtcs /possible_clones etc at > >> >> > that stage. > >> >> > >> >> I'm, without excuse, hopeless at devicetree, so there are probably > >> >> some violations, but something like: > >> >> > >> >> display-pipelines { > >> >> required-elements = <&bridge-a &panel-a &encoder-x &encoder-y > >> >> &crtc-x &crtc-y>; > >> >> > >> >> pipe1 { > >> >> bridge = <&bridge-a>; > >> >> encoder = <&encoder-x>; > >> >> crtc = <&crtc-y>; > >> >> }; > >> >> pipe2 { > >> >> encoder = <&encoder-x>; > >> >> crtc = <&crtc-x>; > >> >> }; > >> >> pipe3 { > >> >> panel = <&panel-a>; > >> >> encoder = <&encoder-y>; > >> >> crtc = <&crtc-y>; > >> >> }; > >> >> }; > >> >> > >> >> I'm tempted to add connector to the pipe nodes as well, so it's > >> >> obvious which connector should be used in cases where multiple > >> >> entities in the pipe implement drm_connector. However, I'm not sure > >> >> if that would be NACKed by dt people. > >> >> > >> >> I'm also not sure if there are too many combinations for i915 and > >> >> radeon to make this unreasonable. I suppose those devices could just > >> >> use required-elements and leave the pipe nodes out. > >> > > >> > Just to put my two cents in, as one of the people involved into "the > >> > device tree movement", I'd say that instead of creating artifical > >> > entities, such as display-pipelines and all of the pipeX'es, device > >> > tree should represent relations between nodes. > >> > > >> > According to the generic DT bindings we already have for > >> > video-interfaces > >> > >> > [1] your example connection layout would look as follows: > >> Hi Tomasz > >> Thanks for sending this along. > >> > >> I think the general consensus is that each drm driver should be > >> implemented as a singular driver. That is, N:1 binding to driver > >> mapping, where there are N IP blocks. Optional devices (such as > >> bridges, panels) probably make sense to spin off as standalone > >> drivers. > > > > I believe this is a huge step backwards from current kernel design > > standards, which prefer modularity. I'd like to adopt a middle ground position on this matter. Without a doubt external I2C devices will have their own device tree node, separate from the display controller node(s). I believe we've settled on that. At the other extreme, it makes no sense to handle IP cores that are tightly coupled with separate device instances (and possibly separate drivers). A display controller with a CRTC that includes a scaler that shares many configuration registers with the scanout engine shouldn't be created from two devices. What's left to debate is everything in-between. I believe than an on-SoC HDMI encoder that is completely decoupled from the display controller (different reigster space, different clocks, different power domain, ...) should be modeled as a separate device, especially if that IP core is used in other SoCs with different display controllers. I'm also ready to ultimately accept the driver author's decision to tightly couple the two drivers. We can probably come up with several guidelines to help taking decisions, but there will be no strict one-size-fits-them-all rule we can apply here, especially before gaining experience from applying the model to several drivers. I'm not too worried, I believe we'll be able to take the right path along the way. > But it makes things behave in the way that userspace expects, which is > more important. > > > Having multiple IPs being part of the DRM subsystem in a SoC, it would be > > nice to have the possibility to compile just a subset of support for them > > into the kernel and load rest of them as modules. (e.g. basic LCD > > controller on a mobile phone compiled in and external connectors, like > > HDMI as modules) > > I think I've mentioned before, that userspace is not prepared to deal > w/ crtc/encoder/connector's dynamically appearing/disappearing. > Perhaps there are ways to improve that, but I haven't come across > hardware where the hdmi block can actually be dynamically removed. Userspace will need to prepare for that in the longer term, as we'll likely see more needs for highly dynamic pipelines (one such use case is partial reconfiguration in FPGA: albeit marginal today, we can't just ignore it in the long term). I don't want to solve this problem now though (even CDF made no attempt at doing so ;-)). > > Not even saying that from development perspective, a huge single driver > > would be much more difficult to test and debug, than several smaller > > drivers, which could be developed separately. > > > > Unless there is a misunderstanding here, I think this is broken. > > > >> An example: exynos_drm_drv would be a platform_driver which implements > >> drm_driver. On drm_load, it would enumerate the various dt nodes for > >> its IP blocks and initialize them with direct calls (like > >> exynos_drm_fimd_initialize). If the board uses a bridge (say for > >> eDP->LVDS), that bridge driver would be a real driver with its own > >> probe. > >> > >> I think the ideal situation would be for the drm layer to manage the > >> standalone drivers in a way that is transparent to the main driver, > >> such that it doesn't need to know which type of hardware can hang off > >> it. It will need to know if one exists since it might need to forego > >> creating a connector, but it need not know anything else about it. > >> > >> To accomplish this, I think we need: > >> > >> (1) Some way for drm to enumerate the standalone drivers, so it can > >> know when all of them have been probed > >> > >> (2) A drm registration function that's called by the standalone > >> drivers once they're probed, and a hook with drm_device pointer called > >> during drm_load for them to register their drm_* implementations > >> > >> (3) Something that will allow for deferred probe if the main driver > >> kicks off before the standalones are in, it would need to be called > >> before drm_platform/pci_init I believe we should defer probing of the sub-drivers only, as we could run into a circular dependency issue if we defer probing on all sides. The main driver should use a notification mechanism instead. This idea has been discussed during the kernel summit and seemed to not have caused a strong disagreement. I will give this a try, given that I already have a working implementation as part of my CDF RFC. I "just" need to extract it as a standalone change (BTW, I wish people would have read the CDF RFC in a bit more details, as it contains ideas that have been proposed on the list by other developers during the last couple of weeks. It's both saddening and slightly offending to post ideas that get ignored because of disagreements on the big picture and see them proposed as brand new later on). > >> I think we'll need to expand on the media bindings to achieve (1). > > > > Could you elaborate on why you think so? > > > > I believe the video interface bindings contain everything needed for this > > case, except, of course, some device/bus specific parts, but those are to > > be defined by separate device/bus specific bindings.
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Sean, > > On Tuesday 29 of October 2013 16:36:47 Sean Paul wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Wednesday 23 of October 2013 12:09:06 Sean Paul wrote: > > >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> >>>>> I think we need to start considering a framework where > > >> >>>>> subdrivers > > >> >>>>> just > > >> >>>>> add drm objects themselves, then the toplevel node is > > >> >>>>> responsible > > >> >>>>> for > > >> >>>>> knowing that everything for the current configuration is > > >> >>>>> loaded. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> It would be nice to specify the various pieces in dt, then have > > >> >>>> some > > >> >>>> type of drm notifier to the toplevel node when everything has > > >> >>>> been > > >> >>>> probed. Doing it in the dt would allow standalone > > >> >>>> drm_bridge/drm_panel > > >> >>>> drivers to be transparent as far as the device's drm driver is > > >> >>>> concerned. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Sean > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>>> I realise we may need to make changes to the core drm to allow > > >> >>>>> this > > >> >>>>> but we should probably start to create a strategy for fixing > > >> >>>>> the > > >> >>>>> API > > >> >>>>> issues that this throws up. > > >> >>>>> > > >> >>>>> Note I'm not yet advocating for dynamic addition of nodes once > > >> >>>>> the > > >> >>>>> device is in use, or removing them. > > >> >>> > > >> >>> I do wonder if we had some sort of tag in the device tree for any > > >> >>> nodes > > >> >>> involved in the display, and the core drm layer would read that > > >> >>> list, > > >> >>> and when every driver registers tick things off, and when the > > >> >>> last > > >> >>> one > > >> >>> joins we get a callback and init the drm layer, we'd of course > > >> >>> have > > >> >>> the > > >> >>> basic drm layer setup prior to that so we can add the objects as > > >> >>> the > > >> >>> drivers load. It might make development a bit trickier as you'd > > >> >>> need > > >> >>> to make sure someone claimed ownership of all the bits for init > > >> >>> to > > >> >>> proceed.>> > > >> >> > > >> >> Yeah, that's basically what the strawman looked like in my head. > > >> >> > > >> >> Instead of a property in each node, I was thinking of having a > > >> >> separate gfx pipe nodes that would have dt pointers to the various > > >> >> pieces involved in that pipe. This would allow us to associate > > >> >> standalone entities like bridges and panels with encoders in dt > > >> >> w/o > > >> >> doing it in the drm code. I *think* this should be Ok with the dt > > >> >> guys > > >> >> since it is still describing the hardware, but I think we'd have > > >> >> to > > >> >> make sure it wasn't drm-specific. > > >> > > > >> > I suppose the question is how much dynamic pipeline construction > > >> > there > > >> > is, > > >> > > > >> > even on things like radeon and i915 we have dynamic clock generator > > >> > to > > >> > crtc to encoder setups, so I worry about static lists per-pipe, so > > >> > I > > >> > still think just stating all these devices are needed for display > > >> > and > > >> > a list of valid interconnections between them, then we can have the > > >> > generic code model drm crtc/encoders/connectors on that list, and > > >> > construct the possible_crtcs /possible_clones etc at that stage. > > >> > > >> I'm, without excuse, hopeless at devicetree, so there are probably > > >> some violations, but something like: > > >> > > >> display-pipelines { > > >> > > >> required-elements = <&bridge-a &panel-a &encoder-x &encoder-y > > >> > > >> &crtc-x &crtc-y>; > > >> > > >> pipe1 { > > >> > > >> bridge = <&bridge-a>; > > >> encoder = <&encoder-x>; > > >> crtc = <&crtc-y>; > > >> > > >> }; > > >> pipe2 { > > >> > > >> encoder = <&encoder-x>; > > >> crtc = <&crtc-x>; > > >> > > >> }; > > >> pipe3 { > > >> > > >> panel = <&panel-a>; > > >> encoder = <&encoder-y>; > > >> crtc = <&crtc-y>; > > >> > > >> }; > > >> > > >> }; > > >> > > >> I'm tempted to add connector to the pipe nodes as well, so it's > > >> obvious which connector should be used in cases where multiple > > >> entities in the pipe implement drm_connector. However, I'm not sure > > >> if > > >> that would be NACKed by dt people. > > >> > > >> I'm also not sure if there are too many combinations for i915 and > > >> radeon to make this unreasonable. I suppose those devices could just > > >> use required-elements and leave the pipe nodes out. > > > > > > Just to put my two cents in, as one of the people involved into "the > > > device tree movement", I'd say that instead of creating artifical > > > entities, such as display-pipelines and all of the pipeX'es, device > > > tree should represent relations between nodes. > > > > > > According to the generic DT bindings we already have for > > > video-interfaces > > > [1] your example connection layout would look as follows: > > Hi Tomasz > > Thanks for sending this along. > > > > I think the general consensus is that each drm driver should be > > implemented as a singular driver. That is, N:1 binding to driver > > mapping, where there are N IP blocks. Optional devices (such as > > bridges, panels) probably make sense to spin off as standalone > > drivers. > > I believe this is a huge step backwards from current kernel design > standards, which prefer modularity. > > Having multiple IPs being part of the DRM subsystem in a SoC, it would be > nice to have the possibility to compile just a subset of support for them > into the kernel and load rest of them as modules. (e.g. basic LCD > controller on a mobile phone compiled in and external connectors, like > HDMI as modules) > > Not even saying that from development perspective, a huge single driver > would be much more difficult to test and debug, than several smaller > drivers, which could be developed separately. > This is the opposite of our experience, though. A series of small drivers like what's in drm/exynos can become really tedious/difficult to coordinate. If you have separate drivers, everything needs to be synchronized, but also has to account for potentially different loading order. It seems you're only thinking about the basic case, where you only support a single resolution, no dpms, no suspend to ram... But when you want full fledged functionality, then the issues I described become much more prevalent. Stéphane > > Unless there is a misunderstanding here, I think this is broken. > > > An example: exynos_drm_drv would be a platform_driver which implements > > drm_driver. On drm_load, it would enumerate the various dt nodes for > > its IP blocks and initialize them with direct calls (like > > exynos_drm_fimd_initialize). If the board uses a bridge (say for > > eDP->LVDS), that bridge driver would be a real driver with its own > > probe. > > > > I think the ideal situation would be for the drm layer to manage the > > standalone drivers in a way that is transparent to the main driver, > > such that it doesn't need to know which type of hardware can hang off > > it. It will need to know if one exists since it might need to forego > > creating a connector, but it need not know anything else about it. > > > > To accomplish this, I think we need: > > (1) Some way for drm to enumerate the standalone drivers, so it can > > know when all of them have been probed > > (2) A drm registration function that's called by the standalone > > drivers once they're probed, and a hook with drm_device pointer called > > during drm_load for them to register their drm_* implementations > > (3) Something that will allow for deferred probe if the main driver > > kicks off before the standalones are in, it would need to be called > > before drm_platform/pci_init > > > > I think we'll need to expand on the media bindings to achieve (1). > > Could you elaborate on why you think so? > > I believe the video interface bindings contain everything needed for this > case, except, of course, some device/bus specific parts, but those are to > be defined by separate device/bus specific bindings. > > Best regards, > Tomasz > > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Sean, > > On Tuesday 29 of October 2013 16:36:47 Sean Paul wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com> > wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > On Wednesday 23 of October 2013 12:09:06 Sean Paul wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> >>>>> I think we need to start considering a framework where >> >> >>>>> subdrivers >> >> >>>>> just >> >> >>>>> add drm objects themselves, then the toplevel node is >> >> >>>>> responsible >> >> >>>>> for >> >> >>>>> knowing that everything for the current configuration is >> >> >>>>> loaded. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> It would be nice to specify the various pieces in dt, then have >> >> >>>> some >> >> >>>> type of drm notifier to the toplevel node when everything has >> >> >>>> been >> >> >>>> probed. Doing it in the dt would allow standalone >> >> >>>> drm_bridge/drm_panel >> >> >>>> drivers to be transparent as far as the device's drm driver is >> >> >>>> concerned. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Sean >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>>> I realise we may need to make changes to the core drm to allow >> >> >>>>> this >> >> >>>>> but we should probably start to create a strategy for fixing >> >> >>>>> the >> >> >>>>> API >> >> >>>>> issues that this throws up. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Note I'm not yet advocating for dynamic addition of nodes once >> >> >>>>> the >> >> >>>>> device is in use, or removing them. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> I do wonder if we had some sort of tag in the device tree for any >> >> >>> nodes >> >> >>> involved in the display, and the core drm layer would read that >> >> >>> list, >> >> >>> and when every driver registers tick things off, and when the >> >> >>> last >> >> >>> one >> >> >>> joins we get a callback and init the drm layer, we'd of course >> >> >>> have >> >> >>> the >> >> >>> basic drm layer setup prior to that so we can add the objects as >> >> >>> the >> >> >>> drivers load. It might make development a bit trickier as you'd >> >> >>> need >> >> >>> to make sure someone claimed ownership of all the bits for init >> >> >>> to >> >> >>> proceed.>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Yeah, that's basically what the strawman looked like in my head. >> >> >> >> >> >> Instead of a property in each node, I was thinking of having a >> >> >> separate gfx pipe nodes that would have dt pointers to the various >> >> >> pieces involved in that pipe. This would allow us to associate >> >> >> standalone entities like bridges and panels with encoders in dt >> >> >> w/o >> >> >> doing it in the drm code. I *think* this should be Ok with the dt >> >> >> guys >> >> >> since it is still describing the hardware, but I think we'd have >> >> >> to >> >> >> make sure it wasn't drm-specific. >> >> > >> >> > I suppose the question is how much dynamic pipeline construction >> >> > there >> >> > is, >> >> > >> >> > even on things like radeon and i915 we have dynamic clock generator >> >> > to >> >> > crtc to encoder setups, so I worry about static lists per-pipe, so >> >> > I >> >> > still think just stating all these devices are needed for display >> >> > and >> >> > a list of valid interconnections between them, then we can have the >> >> > generic code model drm crtc/encoders/connectors on that list, and >> >> > construct the possible_crtcs /possible_clones etc at that stage. >> >> >> >> I'm, without excuse, hopeless at devicetree, so there are probably >> >> some violations, but something like: >> >> >> >> display-pipelines { >> >> >> >> required-elements = <&bridge-a &panel-a &encoder-x &encoder-y >> >> >> >> &crtc-x &crtc-y>; >> >> >> >> pipe1 { >> >> >> >> bridge = <&bridge-a>; >> >> encoder = <&encoder-x>; >> >> crtc = <&crtc-y>; >> >> >> >> }; >> >> pipe2 { >> >> >> >> encoder = <&encoder-x>; >> >> crtc = <&crtc-x>; >> >> >> >> }; >> >> pipe3 { >> >> >> >> panel = <&panel-a>; >> >> encoder = <&encoder-y>; >> >> crtc = <&crtc-y>; >> >> >> >> }; >> >> >> >> }; >> >> >> >> I'm tempted to add connector to the pipe nodes as well, so it's >> >> obvious which connector should be used in cases where multiple >> >> entities in the pipe implement drm_connector. However, I'm not sure >> >> if >> >> that would be NACKed by dt people. >> >> >> >> I'm also not sure if there are too many combinations for i915 and >> >> radeon to make this unreasonable. I suppose those devices could just >> >> use required-elements and leave the pipe nodes out. >> > >> > Just to put my two cents in, as one of the people involved into "the >> > device tree movement", I'd say that instead of creating artifical >> > entities, such as display-pipelines and all of the pipeX'es, device >> > tree should represent relations between nodes. >> > >> > According to the generic DT bindings we already have for >> > video-interfaces >> > [1] your example connection layout would look as follows: >> Hi Tomasz >> Thanks for sending this along. >> >> I think the general consensus is that each drm driver should be >> implemented as a singular driver. That is, N:1 binding to driver >> mapping, where there are N IP blocks. Optional devices (such as >> bridges, panels) probably make sense to spin off as standalone >> drivers. > > I believe this is a huge step backwards from current kernel design > standards, which prefer modularity. > > Having multiple IPs being part of the DRM subsystem in a SoC, it would be > nice to have the possibility to compile just a subset of support for them > into the kernel and load rest of them as modules. (e.g. basic LCD > controller on a mobile phone compiled in and external connectors, like > HDMI as modules) > > Not even saying that from development perspective, a huge single driver > would be much more difficult to test and debug, than several smaller > drivers, which could be developed separately. > > Unless there is a misunderstanding here, I think this is broken. > I'll defer to Stéphane's answer here. In theory it sounds good, but things get messy in practice. >> An example: exynos_drm_drv would be a platform_driver which implements >> drm_driver. On drm_load, it would enumerate the various dt nodes for >> its IP blocks and initialize them with direct calls (like >> exynos_drm_fimd_initialize). If the board uses a bridge (say for >> eDP->LVDS), that bridge driver would be a real driver with its own >> probe. >> >> I think the ideal situation would be for the drm layer to manage the >> standalone drivers in a way that is transparent to the main driver, >> such that it doesn't need to know which type of hardware can hang off >> it. It will need to know if one exists since it might need to forego >> creating a connector, but it need not know anything else about it. >> >> To accomplish this, I think we need: >> (1) Some way for drm to enumerate the standalone drivers, so it can >> know when all of them have been probed >> (2) A drm registration function that's called by the standalone >> drivers once they're probed, and a hook with drm_device pointer called >> during drm_load for them to register their drm_* implementations >> (3) Something that will allow for deferred probe if the main driver >> kicks off before the standalones are in, it would need to be called >> before drm_platform/pci_init >> >> I think we'll need to expand on the media bindings to achieve (1). > > Could you elaborate on why you think so? > > I believe the video interface bindings contain everything needed for this > case, except, of course, some device/bus specific parts, but those are to > be defined by separate device/bus specific bindings. > AFAICT, there is no way for drm to enumerate all of the pieces that need probing before it loads (ie: how do you enumerate all device nodes with pipe {} subnode[s]). I've given this more thought, and I think the following could work without forcing unified/split drivers (ie: it can be left to the driver author to choose). If there was some way for drm to know all of the pieces that need to be probed/initialized before calling drm_load, it could provide an API for various drivers to "claim" nodes. This API would accept the device_node being claimed as well as an initialize hook that will be called back to give the standalone driver a pointer to the drm_device. The main drm driver, which is responsible for calling drm_platform/pci_init, would claim the nodes it plans on implementing in the probe. It would then check drm to see if all requred nodes had been claimed. If they have not been claimed, that probe would defer and try again later. Once all required nodes have been "claimed", the main driver's probe would call drm_platform/pci_init to kick off load(). After load() has finished, the drm layer would then call the various standalone driver hooks that were previously registered when it claimed its node. These hooks would allow the driver to register its crtc/encoder/bridge/connector. Multi-driver solutions could work within this framework, as could integrated ones. This would also allow things like bridge drivers to be completely transparent. I hope that made sense ;) Sean > Best regards, > Tomasz >
On Wednesday 30 October 2013 11:32:24 Sean Paul wrote: > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote: > > On Tuesday 29 of October 2013 16:36:47 Sean Paul wrote: [snip] > >> An example: exynos_drm_drv would be a platform_driver which implements > >> drm_driver. On drm_load, it would enumerate the various dt nodes for > >> its IP blocks and initialize them with direct calls (like > >> exynos_drm_fimd_initialize). If the board uses a bridge (say for > >> eDP->LVDS), that bridge driver would be a real driver with its own > >> probe. > >> > >> I think the ideal situation would be for the drm layer to manage the > >> standalone drivers in a way that is transparent to the main driver, > >> such that it doesn't need to know which type of hardware can hang off > >> it. It will need to know if one exists since it might need to forego > >> creating a connector, but it need not know anything else about it. > >> > >> To accomplish this, I think we need: > >> (1) Some way for drm to enumerate the standalone drivers, so it can > >> know when all of them have been probed > >> > >> (2) A drm registration function that's called by the standalone > >> drivers once they're probed, and a hook with drm_device pointer called > >> during drm_load for them to register their drm_* implementations > >> > >> (3) Something that will allow for deferred probe if the main driver > >> kicks off before the standalones are in, it would need to be called > >> before drm_platform/pci_init > >> > >> I think we'll need to expand on the media bindings to achieve (1). > > > > Could you elaborate on why you think so? > > > > I believe the video interface bindings contain everything needed for this > > case, except, of course, some device/bus specific parts, but those are to > > be defined by separate device/bus specific bindings. > > AFAICT, there is no way for drm to enumerate all of the pieces that > need probing before it loads (ie: how do you enumerate all device > nodes with pipe {} subnode[s]). I've given this more thought, and I > think the following could work without forcing unified/split drivers > (ie: it can be left to the driver author to choose). > > If there was some way for drm to know all of the pieces that need to > be probed/initialized before calling drm_load, it could provide an API > for various drivers to "claim" nodes. This API would accept the > device_node being claimed as well as an initialize hook that will be > called back to give the standalone driver a pointer to the drm_device. > > The main drm driver, which is responsible for calling > drm_platform/pci_init, would claim the nodes it plans on implementing > in the probe. It would then check drm to see if all requred nodes had > been claimed. If they have not been claimed, that probe would defer > and try again later. > > Once all required nodes have been "claimed", the main driver's probe > would call drm_platform/pci_init to kick off load(). After load() has > finished, the drm layer would then call the various standalone driver > hooks that were previously registered when it claimed its node. These > hooks would allow the driver to register its > crtc/encoder/bridge/connector. > > Multi-driver solutions could work within this framework, as could > integrated ones. This would also allow things like bridge drivers to > be completely transparent. Have you all configured your spam filters to reject anything that is or has been related to CDF ? Split in two patches, the first one adding the infrastructure, the second one adding OF support. http://git.linuxtv.org/pinchartl/fbdev.git/commitdiff/2d19e74ab8d86aaf5d54c34c6bc940508f793512 http://git.linuxtv.org/pinchartl/fbdev.git/commitdiff/e8c4380ca4a6a62fa9d8bc340a6dcbd123b4f674 The code can be extracted as a stand-alone solution, either specific to DRM, or at the struct device level. As the problem is not DRM-specific, the later would probably make more sense (if I'm not mistaken Grant Likely - CCed- mentioned during the kernel summit was in favor of adding the code in the device core). We've solved the exact same problem in V4L, do we *really* need to adopt the NIH approach and reinvent the wheel ? > I hope that made sense ;)
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> wrote: > Once all required nodes have been "claimed", the main driver's probe > would call drm_platform/pci_init to kick off load(). After load() has > finished, the drm layer would then call the various standalone driver > hooks that were previously registered when it claimed its node. These > hooks would allow the driver to register its > crtc/encoder/bridge/connector. Just a quick comment on calling the ->driver_load callback: I plan to look again my "kill drm midlayer" series so that drivers are in full control of the load sequence. Then they could do whatever delayed loading the need to do by calling into optional helpers (hopefully shared with asoc and v4l and other aggregate devices madness) and the drm core simply does not need to care: The driver only registers/allocates the drm_device once it's ready to do so. -Daniel
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> wrote: > On Wednesday 30 October 2013 11:32:24 Sean Paul wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote: >> > On Tuesday 29 of October 2013 16:36:47 Sean Paul wrote: > > [snip] > >> >> An example: exynos_drm_drv would be a platform_driver which implements >> >> drm_driver. On drm_load, it would enumerate the various dt nodes for >> >> its IP blocks and initialize them with direct calls (like >> >> exynos_drm_fimd_initialize). If the board uses a bridge (say for >> >> eDP->LVDS), that bridge driver would be a real driver with its own >> >> probe. >> >> >> >> I think the ideal situation would be for the drm layer to manage the >> >> standalone drivers in a way that is transparent to the main driver, >> >> such that it doesn't need to know which type of hardware can hang off >> >> it. It will need to know if one exists since it might need to forego >> >> creating a connector, but it need not know anything else about it. >> >> >> >> To accomplish this, I think we need: >> >> (1) Some way for drm to enumerate the standalone drivers, so it can >> >> know when all of them have been probed >> >> >> >> (2) A drm registration function that's called by the standalone >> >> drivers once they're probed, and a hook with drm_device pointer called >> >> during drm_load for them to register their drm_* implementations >> >> >> >> (3) Something that will allow for deferred probe if the main driver >> >> kicks off before the standalones are in, it would need to be called >> >> before drm_platform/pci_init >> >> >> >> I think we'll need to expand on the media bindings to achieve (1). >> > >> > Could you elaborate on why you think so? >> > >> > I believe the video interface bindings contain everything needed for this >> > case, except, of course, some device/bus specific parts, but those are to >> > be defined by separate device/bus specific bindings. >> >> AFAICT, there is no way for drm to enumerate all of the pieces that >> need probing before it loads (ie: how do you enumerate all device >> nodes with pipe {} subnode[s]). I've given this more thought, and I >> think the following could work without forcing unified/split drivers >> (ie: it can be left to the driver author to choose). >> >> If there was some way for drm to know all of the pieces that need to >> be probed/initialized before calling drm_load, it could provide an API >> for various drivers to "claim" nodes. This API would accept the >> device_node being claimed as well as an initialize hook that will be >> called back to give the standalone driver a pointer to the drm_device. >> >> The main drm driver, which is responsible for calling >> drm_platform/pci_init, would claim the nodes it plans on implementing >> in the probe. It would then check drm to see if all requred nodes had >> been claimed. If they have not been claimed, that probe would defer >> and try again later. >> >> Once all required nodes have been "claimed", the main driver's probe >> would call drm_platform/pci_init to kick off load(). After load() has >> finished, the drm layer would then call the various standalone driver >> hooks that were previously registered when it claimed its node. These >> hooks would allow the driver to register its >> crtc/encoder/bridge/connector. >> >> Multi-driver solutions could work within this framework, as could >> integrated ones. This would also allow things like bridge drivers to >> be completely transparent. > > Have you all configured your spam filters to reject anything that is or has > been related to CDF ? > > Split in two patches, the first one adding the infrastructure, the second one > adding OF support. > > http://git.linuxtv.org/pinchartl/fbdev.git/commitdiff/2d19e74ab8d86aaf5d54c34c6bc940508f793512 > http://git.linuxtv.org/pinchartl/fbdev.git/commitdiff/e8c4380ca4a6a62fa9d8bc340a6dcbd123b4f674 > > The code can be extracted as a stand-alone solution, either specific to DRM, > or at the struct device level. As the problem is not DRM-specific, the later > would probably make more sense (if I'm not mistaken Grant Likely - CCed- > mentioned during the kernel summit was in favor of adding the code in the > device core). > > We've solved the exact same problem in V4L, do we *really* need to adopt the > NIH approach and reinvent the wheel ? > Laurent, I really don't care how the functionality gets in, or what form it takes. This isn't NIH, I just want something that can be merged. When we talked about CDF at plumbers, I thought the plan was to split it up into the logical pieces and integrate it into drm. I haven't seen any movement on this front, is that still your intention? If so, I look forward to the patch. Sean >> I hope that made sense ;) > > -- > Regards, > > Laurent Pinchart >
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 04:22:11PM +0100, Dave Airlie wrote: > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> As I mentioned earlier, display_ops is needed to have no any > >>> dependency of drm framework directly like below, > >>> > >>> DRM Framework > >>> | > >>> Exynos DRM Framework > >>> / | \ > >>> Real device drivers > >>> > >>> In particular, in case of ARM based DRM drivers with separated > >>> devices, I still tend to think it's better design than that device > >>> drivers implement the connector callbacks directly, but I will try to > >>> consider what is the better way. > >>> > >> > >> I think we need to start considering a framework where subdrivers just > >> add drm objects themselves, then the toplevel node is responsible for > >> knowing that everything for the current configuration is loaded. > >> > > > > It would be nice to specify the various pieces in dt, then have some > > type of drm notifier to the toplevel node when everything has been > > probed. Doing it in the dt would allow standalone drm_bridge/drm_panel > > drivers to be transparent as far as the device's drm driver is > > concerned. > > > > Sean > > > > > >> I realise we may need to make changes to the core drm to allow this > >> but we should probably start to create a strategy for fixing the API > >> issues that this throws up. > >> > >> Note I'm not yet advocating for dynamic addition of nodes once the > >> device is in use, or removing them. > >> > > I do wonder if we had some sort of tag in the device tree for any nodes > involved in the display, and the core drm layer would read that list, > and when every driver registers tick things off, and when the last one > joins we get a callback and init the drm layer, we'd of course have the > basic drm layer setup prior to that so we can add the objects as the > drivers load. It might make development a bit trickier as you'd need > to make sure someone claimed ownership of all the bits for init to proceed. I'm curious whether anyone actually ever bothered to look at the Tegra driver. It pretty much does all of this already. Granted the hardware may be more friendly than on most other SoCs, but essentially the problem is the same. Thierry
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 05:29:55PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote: > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com> wrote: [...] > > I believe this is a huge step backwards from current kernel design > > standards, which prefer modularity. > > But it makes things behave in the way that userspace expects, which is > more important. Why would userspace care about the modularity of kernel drivers? The only thing that userspace should care about is whether there's a DRM device or not. How the kernel makes that happen should be completely irrelevant to userspace. Thierry
Hi Sean, Sorry for the late reply. On Wednesday 30 October 2013 11:56:18 Sean Paul wrote: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Wednesday 30 October 2013 11:32:24 Sean Paul wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote: > >> > On Tuesday 29 of October 2013 16:36:47 Sean Paul wrote: > > [snip] > > > >> >> An example: exynos_drm_drv would be a platform_driver which implements > >> >> drm_driver. On drm_load, it would enumerate the various dt nodes for > >> >> its IP blocks and initialize them with direct calls (like > >> >> exynos_drm_fimd_initialize). If the board uses a bridge (say for > >> >> eDP->LVDS), that bridge driver would be a real driver with its own > >> >> probe. > >> >> > >> >> I think the ideal situation would be for the drm layer to manage the > >> >> standalone drivers in a way that is transparent to the main driver, > >> >> such that it doesn't need to know which type of hardware can hang off > >> >> it. It will need to know if one exists since it might need to forego > >> >> creating a connector, but it need not know anything else about it. > >> >> > >> >> To accomplish this, I think we need: > >> >> (1) Some way for drm to enumerate the standalone drivers, so it can > >> >> know when all of them have been probed > >> >> > >> >> (2) A drm registration function that's called by the standalone > >> >> drivers once they're probed, and a hook with drm_device pointer called > >> >> during drm_load for them to register their drm_* implementations > >> >> > >> >> (3) Something that will allow for deferred probe if the main driver > >> >> kicks off before the standalones are in, it would need to be called > >> >> before drm_platform/pci_init > >> >> > >> >> I think we'll need to expand on the media bindings to achieve (1). > >> > > >> > Could you elaborate on why you think so? > >> > > >> > I believe the video interface bindings contain everything needed for > >> > this > >> > case, except, of course, some device/bus specific parts, but those are > >> > to > >> > be defined by separate device/bus specific bindings. > >> > >> AFAICT, there is no way for drm to enumerate all of the pieces that > >> need probing before it loads (ie: how do you enumerate all device > >> nodes with pipe {} subnode[s]). I've given this more thought, and I > >> think the following could work without forcing unified/split drivers > >> (ie: it can be left to the driver author to choose). > >> > >> If there was some way for drm to know all of the pieces that need to > >> be probed/initialized before calling drm_load, it could provide an API > >> for various drivers to "claim" nodes. This API would accept the > >> device_node being claimed as well as an initialize hook that will be > >> called back to give the standalone driver a pointer to the drm_device. > >> > >> The main drm driver, which is responsible for calling > >> drm_platform/pci_init, would claim the nodes it plans on implementing > >> in the probe. It would then check drm to see if all requred nodes had > >> been claimed. If they have not been claimed, that probe would defer > >> and try again later. > >> > >> Once all required nodes have been "claimed", the main driver's probe > >> would call drm_platform/pci_init to kick off load(). After load() has > >> finished, the drm layer would then call the various standalone driver > >> hooks that were previously registered when it claimed its node. These > >> hooks would allow the driver to register its > >> crtc/encoder/bridge/connector. > >> > >> Multi-driver solutions could work within this framework, as could > >> integrated ones. This would also allow things like bridge drivers to > >> be completely transparent. > > > > Have you all configured your spam filters to reject anything that is or > > has > > been related to CDF ? > > > > Split in two patches, the first one adding the infrastructure, the second > > one adding OF support. > > > > http://git.linuxtv.org/pinchartl/fbdev.git/commitdiff/2d19e74ab8d86aaf5d54 > > c34c6bc940508f793512 > > http://git.linuxtv.org/pinchartl/fbdev.git/commitdiff/e8c4380ca4a6a62fa9d > > 8bc340a6dcbd123b4f674 > > > > The code can be extracted as a stand-alone solution, either specific to > > DRM, or at the struct device level. As the problem is not DRM-specific, > > the later would probably make more sense (if I'm not mistaken Grant > > Likely - CCed- mentioned during the kernel summit was in favor of adding > > the code in the device core). > > > > We've solved the exact same problem in V4L, do we *really* need to adopt > > the NIH approach and reinvent the wheel ? > > Laurent, > I really don't care how the functionality gets in, or what form it takes. > This isn't NIH, I just want something that can be merged. Great :-) > When we talked about CDF at plumbers, I thought the plan was to split it up > into the logical pieces and integrate it into drm. I haven't seen any > movement on this front, is that still your intention? If so, I look forward > to the patch. Yes, it's still my intention, and the DT bindings + notifier code will be the first piece. I hope to post a first version at the end of the week(end). Sorry for the delay.
Hi Daniel, On Wednesday 30 October 2013 16:53:22 Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> wrote: > > Once all required nodes have been "claimed", the main driver's probe > > would call drm_platform/pci_init to kick off load(). After load() has > > finished, the drm layer would then call the various standalone driver > > hooks that were previously registered when it claimed its node. These > > hooks would allow the driver to register its > > crtc/encoder/bridge/connector. > > Just a quick comment on calling the ->driver_load callback: I plan to > look again my "kill drm midlayer" series so that drivers are in full > control of the load sequence. Then they could do whatever delayed > loading the need to do by calling into optional helpers (hopefully > shared with asoc and v4l and other aggregate devices madness) and the > drm core simply does not need to care: The driver only > registers/allocates the drm_device once it's ready to do so. That would be great ! Please let me know if you would like me to test patches with the R-Car DU driver.
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 12:32:11AM +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hello, > > On Tuesday 29 October 2013 17:29:55 Rob Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote: > > > On Tuesday 29 of October 2013 16:36:47 Sean Paul wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote: > > >> > On Wednesday 23 of October 2013 12:09:06 Sean Paul wrote: > > >> >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Dave Airlie wrote: > > >> >> >>>>> I think we need to start considering a framework where > > >> >> >>>>> subdrivers just add drm objects themselves, then the toplevel > > >> >> >>>>> node is responsible for knowing that everything for the current > > >> >> >>>>> configuration is loaded. > > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> It would be nice to specify the various pieces in dt, then have > > >> >> >>>> some type of drm notifier to the toplevel node when everything > > >> >> >>>> has been probed. Doing it in the dt would allow standalone > > >> >> >>>> drm_bridge/drm_panel drivers to be transparent as far as the > > >> >> >>>> device's drm driver is concerned. > > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> Sean > > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>>> I realise we may need to make changes to the core drm to allow > > >> >> >>>>> this but we should probably start to create a strategy for > > >> >> >>>>> fixing the API issues that this throws up. > > >> >> >>>>> > > >> >> >>>>> Note I'm not yet advocating for dynamic addition of nodes once > > >> >> >>>>> the device is in use, or removing them. > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> I do wonder if we had some sort of tag in the device tree for any > > >> >> >>> nodes involved in the display, and the core drm layer would read > > >> >> >>> that list, and when every driver registers tick things off, and > > >> >> >>> when the last one joins we get a callback and init the drm layer, > > >> >> >>> we'd of course have the basic drm layer setup prior to that so we > > >> >> >>> can add the objects as the drivers load. It might make development > > >> >> >>> a bit trickier as you'd need to make sure someone claimed > > >> >> >>> ownership of all the bits for init to proceed. > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> Yeah, that's basically what the strawman looked like in my head. > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> Instead of a property in each node, I was thinking of having a > > >> >> >> separate gfx pipe nodes that would have dt pointers to the various > > >> >> >> pieces involved in that pipe. This would allow us to associate > > >> >> >> standalone entities like bridges and panels with encoders in dt > > >> >> >> w/o doing it in the drm code. I *think* this should be Ok with the > > >> >> >> dt guys since it is still describing the hardware, but I think we'd > > >> >> >> have to make sure it wasn't drm-specific. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > I suppose the question is how much dynamic pipeline construction > > >> >> > there is, even on things like radeon and i915 we have dynamic clock > > >> >> > generator to crtc to encoder setups, so I worry about static lists > > >> >> > per-pipe, so I still think just stating all these devices are needed > > >> >> > for display and a list of valid interconnections between them, then > > >> >> > we can have the generic code model drm crtc/encoders/connectors on > > >> >> > that list, and construct the possible_crtcs /possible_clones etc at > > >> >> > that stage. > > >> >> > > >> >> I'm, without excuse, hopeless at devicetree, so there are probably > > >> >> some violations, but something like: > > >> >> > > >> >> display-pipelines { > > >> >> required-elements = <&bridge-a &panel-a &encoder-x &encoder-y > > >> >> &crtc-x &crtc-y>; > > >> >> > > >> >> pipe1 { > > >> >> bridge = <&bridge-a>; > > >> >> encoder = <&encoder-x>; > > >> >> crtc = <&crtc-y>; > > >> >> }; > > >> >> pipe2 { > > >> >> encoder = <&encoder-x>; > > >> >> crtc = <&crtc-x>; > > >> >> }; > > >> >> pipe3 { > > >> >> panel = <&panel-a>; > > >> >> encoder = <&encoder-y>; > > >> >> crtc = <&crtc-y>; > > >> >> }; > > >> >> }; > > >> >> > > >> >> I'm tempted to add connector to the pipe nodes as well, so it's > > >> >> obvious which connector should be used in cases where multiple > > >> >> entities in the pipe implement drm_connector. However, I'm not sure > > >> >> if that would be NACKed by dt people. > > >> >> > > >> >> I'm also not sure if there are too many combinations for i915 and > > >> >> radeon to make this unreasonable. I suppose those devices could just > > >> >> use required-elements and leave the pipe nodes out. > > >> > > > >> > Just to put my two cents in, as one of the people involved into "the > > >> > device tree movement", I'd say that instead of creating artifical > > >> > entities, such as display-pipelines and all of the pipeX'es, device > > >> > tree should represent relations between nodes. > > >> > > > >> > According to the generic DT bindings we already have for > > >> > video-interfaces > > >> > > >> > [1] your example connection layout would look as follows: > > >> Hi Tomasz > > >> Thanks for sending this along. > > >> > > >> I think the general consensus is that each drm driver should be > > >> implemented as a singular driver. That is, N:1 binding to driver > > >> mapping, where there are N IP blocks. Optional devices (such as > > >> bridges, panels) probably make sense to spin off as standalone > > >> drivers. > > > > > > I believe this is a huge step backwards from current kernel design > > > standards, which prefer modularity. > > I'd like to adopt a middle ground position on this matter. > > Without a doubt external I2C devices will have their own device tree node, > separate from the display controller node(s). I believe we've settled on that. > > At the other extreme, it makes no sense to handle IP cores that are tightly > coupled with separate device instances (and possibly separate drivers). A > display controller with a CRTC that includes a scaler that shares many > configuration registers with the scanout engine shouldn't be created from two > devices. > > What's left to debate is everything in-between. I believe than an on-SoC HDMI > encoder that is completely decoupled from the display controller (different > reigster space, different clocks, different power domain, ...) should be > modeled as a separate device, especially if that IP core is used in other SoCs > with different display controllers. I'm also ready to ultimately accept the > driver author's decision to tightly couple the two drivers. We can probably > come up with several guidelines to help taking decisions, but there will be no > strict one-size-fits-them-all rule we can apply here, especially before > gaining experience from applying the model to several drivers. I'm not too > worried, I believe we'll be able to take the right path along the way. > > > But it makes things behave in the way that userspace expects, which is > > more important. > > > > > Having multiple IPs being part of the DRM subsystem in a SoC, it would be > > > nice to have the possibility to compile just a subset of support for them > > > into the kernel and load rest of them as modules. (e.g. basic LCD > > > controller on a mobile phone compiled in and external connectors, like > > > HDMI as modules) > > > > I think I've mentioned before, that userspace is not prepared to deal > > w/ crtc/encoder/connector's dynamically appearing/disappearing. > > Perhaps there are ways to improve that, but I haven't come across > > hardware where the hdmi block can actually be dynamically removed. > > Userspace will need to prepare for that in the longer term, as we'll likely > see more needs for highly dynamic pipelines (one such use case is partial > reconfiguration in FPGA: albeit marginal today, we can't just ignore it in the > long term). I don't want to solve this problem now though (even CDF made no > attempt at doing so ;-)). > > > > Not even saying that from development perspective, a huge single driver > > > would be much more difficult to test and debug, than several smaller > > > drivers, which could be developed separately. > > > > > > Unless there is a misunderstanding here, I think this is broken. > > > > > >> An example: exynos_drm_drv would be a platform_driver which implements > > >> drm_driver. On drm_load, it would enumerate the various dt nodes for > > >> its IP blocks and initialize them with direct calls (like > > >> exynos_drm_fimd_initialize). If the board uses a bridge (say for > > >> eDP->LVDS), that bridge driver would be a real driver with its own > > >> probe. > > >> > > >> I think the ideal situation would be for the drm layer to manage the > > >> standalone drivers in a way that is transparent to the main driver, > > >> such that it doesn't need to know which type of hardware can hang off > > >> it. It will need to know if one exists since it might need to forego > > >> creating a connector, but it need not know anything else about it. > > >> > > >> To accomplish this, I think we need: > > >> > > >> (1) Some way for drm to enumerate the standalone drivers, so it can > > >> know when all of them have been probed > > >> > > >> (2) A drm registration function that's called by the standalone > > >> drivers once they're probed, and a hook with drm_device pointer called > > >> during drm_load for them to register their drm_* implementations > > >> > > >> (3) Something that will allow for deferred probe if the main driver > > >> kicks off before the standalones are in, it would need to be called > > >> before drm_platform/pci_init > > I believe we should defer probing of the sub-drivers only, as we could run > into a circular dependency issue if we defer probing on all sides. The main > driver should use a notification mechanism instead. This idea has been > discussed during the kernel summit and seemed to not have caused a strong > disagreement. > > I will give this a try, given that I already have a working implementation as > part of my CDF RFC. I "just" need to extract it as a standalone change (BTW, I > wish people would have read the CDF RFC in a bit more details, as it contains > ideas that have been proposed on the list by other developers during the last > couple of weeks. It's both saddening and slightly offending to post ideas that > get ignored because of disagreements on the big picture and see them proposed > as brand new later on). I'll join in your whining. The Tegra DRM driver has implemented most of the ideas discussed here since the beginning. Oh... and that even predates CDF by a few months. Then again, perhaps I shouldn't complain all that loudly about people not looking at my driver since I don't look at most other DRM drivers either. Perhaps we should have a poll: who on this list has actually looked at any of the other DRM drivers? It seems to me like we really ought to improve how we cooperate. Thierry
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 08:46:03PM -0700, Stéphane Marchesin wrote: > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Sean, > > > > On Tuesday 29 of October 2013 16:36:47 Sean Paul wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > On Wednesday 23 of October 2013 12:09:06 Sean Paul wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> >>>>> I think we need to start considering a framework where > > > >> >>>>> subdrivers > > > >> >>>>> just > > > >> >>>>> add drm objects themselves, then the toplevel node is > > > >> >>>>> responsible > > > >> >>>>> for > > > >> >>>>> knowing that everything for the current configuration is > > > >> >>>>> loaded. > > > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> It would be nice to specify the various pieces in dt, then have > > > >> >>>> some > > > >> >>>> type of drm notifier to the toplevel node when everything has > > > >> >>>> been > > > >> >>>> probed. Doing it in the dt would allow standalone > > > >> >>>> drm_bridge/drm_panel > > > >> >>>> drivers to be transparent as far as the device's drm driver is > > > >> >>>> concerned. > > > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> Sean > > > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>>> I realise we may need to make changes to the core drm to allow > > > >> >>>>> this > > > >> >>>>> but we should probably start to create a strategy for fixing > > > >> >>>>> the > > > >> >>>>> API > > > >> >>>>> issues that this throws up. > > > >> >>>>> > > > >> >>>>> Note I'm not yet advocating for dynamic addition of nodes once > > > >> >>>>> the > > > >> >>>>> device is in use, or removing them. > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> I do wonder if we had some sort of tag in the device tree for any > > > >> >>> nodes > > > >> >>> involved in the display, and the core drm layer would read that > > > >> >>> list, > > > >> >>> and when every driver registers tick things off, and when the > > > >> >>> last > > > >> >>> one > > > >> >>> joins we get a callback and init the drm layer, we'd of course > > > >> >>> have > > > >> >>> the > > > >> >>> basic drm layer setup prior to that so we can add the objects as > > > >> >>> the > > > >> >>> drivers load. It might make development a bit trickier as you'd > > > >> >>> need > > > >> >>> to make sure someone claimed ownership of all the bits for init > > > >> >>> to > > > >> >>> proceed.>> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> Yeah, that's basically what the strawman looked like in my head. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> Instead of a property in each node, I was thinking of having a > > > >> >> separate gfx pipe nodes that would have dt pointers to the various > > > >> >> pieces involved in that pipe. This would allow us to associate > > > >> >> standalone entities like bridges and panels with encoders in dt > > > >> >> w/o > > > >> >> doing it in the drm code. I *think* this should be Ok with the dt > > > >> >> guys > > > >> >> since it is still describing the hardware, but I think we'd have > > > >> >> to > > > >> >> make sure it wasn't drm-specific. > > > >> > > > > >> > I suppose the question is how much dynamic pipeline construction > > > >> > there > > > >> > is, > > > >> > > > > >> > even on things like radeon and i915 we have dynamic clock generator > > > >> > to > > > >> > crtc to encoder setups, so I worry about static lists per-pipe, so > > > >> > I > > > >> > still think just stating all these devices are needed for display > > > >> > and > > > >> > a list of valid interconnections between them, then we can have the > > > >> > generic code model drm crtc/encoders/connectors on that list, and > > > >> > construct the possible_crtcs /possible_clones etc at that stage. > > > >> > > > >> I'm, without excuse, hopeless at devicetree, so there are probably > > > >> some violations, but something like: > > > >> > > > >> display-pipelines { > > > >> > > > >> required-elements = <&bridge-a &panel-a &encoder-x &encoder-y > > > >> > > > >> &crtc-x &crtc-y>; > > > >> > > > >> pipe1 { > > > >> > > > >> bridge = <&bridge-a>; > > > >> encoder = <&encoder-x>; > > > >> crtc = <&crtc-y>; > > > >> > > > >> }; > > > >> pipe2 { > > > >> > > > >> encoder = <&encoder-x>; > > > >> crtc = <&crtc-x>; > > > >> > > > >> }; > > > >> pipe3 { > > > >> > > > >> panel = <&panel-a>; > > > >> encoder = <&encoder-y>; > > > >> crtc = <&crtc-y>; > > > >> > > > >> }; > > > >> > > > >> }; > > > >> > > > >> I'm tempted to add connector to the pipe nodes as well, so it's > > > >> obvious which connector should be used in cases where multiple > > > >> entities in the pipe implement drm_connector. However, I'm not sure > > > >> if > > > >> that would be NACKed by dt people. > > > >> > > > >> I'm also not sure if there are too many combinations for i915 and > > > >> radeon to make this unreasonable. I suppose those devices could just > > > >> use required-elements and leave the pipe nodes out. > > > > > > > > Just to put my two cents in, as one of the people involved into "the > > > > device tree movement", I'd say that instead of creating artifical > > > > entities, such as display-pipelines and all of the pipeX'es, device > > > > tree should represent relations between nodes. > > > > > > > > According to the generic DT bindings we already have for > > > > video-interfaces > > > > [1] your example connection layout would look as follows: > > > Hi Tomasz > > > Thanks for sending this along. > > > > > > I think the general consensus is that each drm driver should be > > > implemented as a singular driver. That is, N:1 binding to driver > > > mapping, where there are N IP blocks. Optional devices (such as > > > bridges, panels) probably make sense to spin off as standalone > > > drivers. > > > > I believe this is a huge step backwards from current kernel design > > standards, which prefer modularity. > > > > Having multiple IPs being part of the DRM subsystem in a SoC, it would be > > nice to have the possibility to compile just a subset of support for them > > into the kernel and load rest of them as modules. (e.g. basic LCD > > controller on a mobile phone compiled in and external connectors, like > > HDMI as modules) > > > > Not even saying that from development perspective, a huge single driver > > would be much more difficult to test and debug, than several smaller > > drivers, which could be developed separately. > > > > This is the opposite of our experience, though. A series of small drivers > like what's in drm/exynos can become really tedious/difficult to > coordinate. If you have separate drivers, everything needs to be > synchronized, but also has to account for potentially different loading > order. > > It seems you're only thinking about the basic case, where you only support > a single resolution, no dpms, no suspend to ram... But when you want full > fledged functionality, then the issues I described become much more > prevalent. I fail to see how this is relevant here. It's fairly clear that even if a DRM driver is composed of more than a single platform driver, there's still a single point of coordination (the DRM driver). How does that have any impact on what features the driver can support? All of the features will be exposed via DRM, whether you use multiple drivers or a single monolithic one underneath is completely irrelevant. Thierry
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:32:24AM -0400, Sean Paul wrote: > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Sean, > > > > On Tuesday 29 of October 2013 16:36:47 Sean Paul wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > On Wednesday 23 of October 2013 12:09:06 Sean Paul wrote: > >> >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> >> >>>>> I think we need to start considering a framework where > >> >> >>>>> subdrivers > >> >> >>>>> just > >> >> >>>>> add drm objects themselves, then the toplevel node is > >> >> >>>>> responsible > >> >> >>>>> for > >> >> >>>>> knowing that everything for the current configuration is > >> >> >>>>> loaded. > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> It would be nice to specify the various pieces in dt, then have > >> >> >>>> some > >> >> >>>> type of drm notifier to the toplevel node when everything has > >> >> >>>> been > >> >> >>>> probed. Doing it in the dt would allow standalone > >> >> >>>> drm_bridge/drm_panel > >> >> >>>> drivers to be transparent as far as the device's drm driver is > >> >> >>>> concerned. > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> Sean > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>>> I realise we may need to make changes to the core drm to allow > >> >> >>>>> this > >> >> >>>>> but we should probably start to create a strategy for fixing > >> >> >>>>> the > >> >> >>>>> API > >> >> >>>>> issues that this throws up. > >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> Note I'm not yet advocating for dynamic addition of nodes once > >> >> >>>>> the > >> >> >>>>> device is in use, or removing them. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> I do wonder if we had some sort of tag in the device tree for any > >> >> >>> nodes > >> >> >>> involved in the display, and the core drm layer would read that > >> >> >>> list, > >> >> >>> and when every driver registers tick things off, and when the > >> >> >>> last > >> >> >>> one > >> >> >>> joins we get a callback and init the drm layer, we'd of course > >> >> >>> have > >> >> >>> the > >> >> >>> basic drm layer setup prior to that so we can add the objects as > >> >> >>> the > >> >> >>> drivers load. It might make development a bit trickier as you'd > >> >> >>> need > >> >> >>> to make sure someone claimed ownership of all the bits for init > >> >> >>> to > >> >> >>> proceed.>> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Yeah, that's basically what the strawman looked like in my head. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Instead of a property in each node, I was thinking of having a > >> >> >> separate gfx pipe nodes that would have dt pointers to the various > >> >> >> pieces involved in that pipe. This would allow us to associate > >> >> >> standalone entities like bridges and panels with encoders in dt > >> >> >> w/o > >> >> >> doing it in the drm code. I *think* this should be Ok with the dt > >> >> >> guys > >> >> >> since it is still describing the hardware, but I think we'd have > >> >> >> to > >> >> >> make sure it wasn't drm-specific. > >> >> > > >> >> > I suppose the question is how much dynamic pipeline construction > >> >> > there > >> >> > is, > >> >> > > >> >> > even on things like radeon and i915 we have dynamic clock generator > >> >> > to > >> >> > crtc to encoder setups, so I worry about static lists per-pipe, so > >> >> > I > >> >> > still think just stating all these devices are needed for display > >> >> > and > >> >> > a list of valid interconnections between them, then we can have the > >> >> > generic code model drm crtc/encoders/connectors on that list, and > >> >> > construct the possible_crtcs /possible_clones etc at that stage. > >> >> > >> >> I'm, without excuse, hopeless at devicetree, so there are probably > >> >> some violations, but something like: > >> >> > >> >> display-pipelines { > >> >> > >> >> required-elements = <&bridge-a &panel-a &encoder-x &encoder-y > >> >> > >> >> &crtc-x &crtc-y>; > >> >> > >> >> pipe1 { > >> >> > >> >> bridge = <&bridge-a>; > >> >> encoder = <&encoder-x>; > >> >> crtc = <&crtc-y>; > >> >> > >> >> }; > >> >> pipe2 { > >> >> > >> >> encoder = <&encoder-x>; > >> >> crtc = <&crtc-x>; > >> >> > >> >> }; > >> >> pipe3 { > >> >> > >> >> panel = <&panel-a>; > >> >> encoder = <&encoder-y>; > >> >> crtc = <&crtc-y>; > >> >> > >> >> }; > >> >> > >> >> }; > >> >> > >> >> I'm tempted to add connector to the pipe nodes as well, so it's > >> >> obvious which connector should be used in cases where multiple > >> >> entities in the pipe implement drm_connector. However, I'm not sure > >> >> if > >> >> that would be NACKed by dt people. > >> >> > >> >> I'm also not sure if there are too many combinations for i915 and > >> >> radeon to make this unreasonable. I suppose those devices could just > >> >> use required-elements and leave the pipe nodes out. > >> > > >> > Just to put my two cents in, as one of the people involved into "the > >> > device tree movement", I'd say that instead of creating artifical > >> > entities, such as display-pipelines and all of the pipeX'es, device > >> > tree should represent relations between nodes. > >> > > >> > According to the generic DT bindings we already have for > >> > video-interfaces > >> > [1] your example connection layout would look as follows: > >> Hi Tomasz > >> Thanks for sending this along. > >> > >> I think the general consensus is that each drm driver should be > >> implemented as a singular driver. That is, N:1 binding to driver > >> mapping, where there are N IP blocks. Optional devices (such as > >> bridges, panels) probably make sense to spin off as standalone > >> drivers. > > > > I believe this is a huge step backwards from current kernel design > > standards, which prefer modularity. > > > > Having multiple IPs being part of the DRM subsystem in a SoC, it would be > > nice to have the possibility to compile just a subset of support for them > > into the kernel and load rest of them as modules. (e.g. basic LCD > > controller on a mobile phone compiled in and external connectors, like > > HDMI as modules) > > > > Not even saying that from development perspective, a huge single driver > > would be much more difficult to test and debug, than several smaller > > drivers, which could be developed separately. > > > > Unless there is a misunderstanding here, I think this is broken. > > > > I'll defer to Stéphane's answer here. In theory it sounds good, but > things get messy in practice. > > >> An example: exynos_drm_drv would be a platform_driver which implements > >> drm_driver. On drm_load, it would enumerate the various dt nodes for > >> its IP blocks and initialize them with direct calls (like > >> exynos_drm_fimd_initialize). If the board uses a bridge (say for > >> eDP->LVDS), that bridge driver would be a real driver with its own > >> probe. > >> > >> I think the ideal situation would be for the drm layer to manage the > >> standalone drivers in a way that is transparent to the main driver, > >> such that it doesn't need to know which type of hardware can hang off > >> it. It will need to know if one exists since it might need to forego > >> creating a connector, but it need not know anything else about it. > >> > >> To accomplish this, I think we need: > >> (1) Some way for drm to enumerate the standalone drivers, so it can > >> know when all of them have been probed > >> (2) A drm registration function that's called by the standalone > >> drivers once they're probed, and a hook with drm_device pointer called > >> during drm_load for them to register their drm_* implementations > >> (3) Something that will allow for deferred probe if the main driver > >> kicks off before the standalones are in, it would need to be called > >> before drm_platform/pci_init > >> > >> I think we'll need to expand on the media bindings to achieve (1). > > > > Could you elaborate on why you think so? > > > > I believe the video interface bindings contain everything needed for this > > case, except, of course, some device/bus specific parts, but those are to > > be defined by separate device/bus specific bindings. > > > > AFAICT, there is no way for drm to enumerate all of the pieces that > need probing before it loads (ie: how do you enumerate all device > nodes with pipe {} subnode[s]). I've given this more thought, and I > think the following could work without forcing unified/split drivers > (ie: it can be left to the driver author to choose). > > If there was some way for drm to know all of the pieces that need to > be probed/initialized before calling drm_load, it could provide an API > for various drivers to "claim" nodes. This API would accept the > device_node being claimed as well as an initialize hook that will be > called back to give the standalone driver a pointer to the drm_device. > > The main drm driver, which is responsible for calling > drm_platform/pci_init, would claim the nodes it plans on implementing > in the probe. It would then check drm to see if all requred nodes had > been claimed. If they have not been claimed, that probe would defer > and try again later. > > Once all required nodes have been "claimed", the main driver's probe > would call drm_platform/pci_init to kick off load(). After load() has > finished, the drm layer would then call the various standalone driver > hooks that were previously registered when it claimed its node. These > hooks would allow the driver to register its > crtc/encoder/bridge/connector. > > Multi-driver solutions could work within this framework, as could > integrated ones. This would also allow things like bridge drivers to > be completely transparent. > > I hope that made sense ;) I'll just go and repeat myself in the hope to increase chances of someone reading it: I recommend looking at the Tegra DRM driver which solves a lot of these issues already (in much the same way that you suggest here). The version in the tree that I've submitted for 3.13 (I think Dave hasn't merged it yet) is improved in many ways. Unfortunately it isn't quite as generic as I would've liked it to be and rather tied to how the Tegra SoC is architected, but I've volunteered elsewhere to look into further abstracting things away in order to turn it into something that could even be used outside of DRM. I haven't received much feedback, though, so I have close to no idea what the requirements for others are, and hence it's difficult to know where to start. In case anyone's interested, there's some code here: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/tegra/linux/log/?h=drm/for-next More specifically: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/tegra/linux/tree/drivers/gpu/host1x/bus.c?h=drm/for-next http://cgit.freedesktop.org/tegra/linux/tree/drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/bus.c?h=drm/for-next http://cgit.freedesktop.org/tegra/linux/tree/drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/drm.c?h=drm/for-next Thierry
2013/11/4 Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>: > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 08:46:03PM -0700, Stéphane Marchesin wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Hi Sean, >> > >> > On Tuesday 29 of October 2013 16:36:47 Sean Paul wrote: >> > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > > Hi, >> > > > >> > > > On Wednesday 23 of October 2013 12:09:06 Sean Paul wrote: >> > > >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > >> >>>>> I think we need to start considering a framework where >> > > >> >>>>> subdrivers >> > > >> >>>>> just >> > > >> >>>>> add drm objects themselves, then the toplevel node is >> > > >> >>>>> responsible >> > > >> >>>>> for >> > > >> >>>>> knowing that everything for the current configuration is >> > > >> >>>>> loaded. >> > > >> >>>> >> > > >> >>>> It would be nice to specify the various pieces in dt, then have >> > > >> >>>> some >> > > >> >>>> type of drm notifier to the toplevel node when everything has >> > > >> >>>> been >> > > >> >>>> probed. Doing it in the dt would allow standalone >> > > >> >>>> drm_bridge/drm_panel >> > > >> >>>> drivers to be transparent as far as the device's drm driver is >> > > >> >>>> concerned. >> > > >> >>>> >> > > >> >>>> Sean >> > > >> >>>> >> > > >> >>>>> I realise we may need to make changes to the core drm to allow >> > > >> >>>>> this >> > > >> >>>>> but we should probably start to create a strategy for fixing >> > > >> >>>>> the >> > > >> >>>>> API >> > > >> >>>>> issues that this throws up. >> > > >> >>>>> >> > > >> >>>>> Note I'm not yet advocating for dynamic addition of nodes once >> > > >> >>>>> the >> > > >> >>>>> device is in use, or removing them. >> > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> I do wonder if we had some sort of tag in the device tree for any >> > > >> >>> nodes >> > > >> >>> involved in the display, and the core drm layer would read that >> > > >> >>> list, >> > > >> >>> and when every driver registers tick things off, and when the >> > > >> >>> last >> > > >> >>> one >> > > >> >>> joins we get a callback and init the drm layer, we'd of course >> > > >> >>> have >> > > >> >>> the >> > > >> >>> basic drm layer setup prior to that so we can add the objects as >> > > >> >>> the >> > > >> >>> drivers load. It might make development a bit trickier as you'd >> > > >> >>> need >> > > >> >>> to make sure someone claimed ownership of all the bits for init >> > > >> >>> to >> > > >> >>> proceed.>> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> Yeah, that's basically what the strawman looked like in my head. >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> Instead of a property in each node, I was thinking of having a >> > > >> >> separate gfx pipe nodes that would have dt pointers to the various >> > > >> >> pieces involved in that pipe. This would allow us to associate >> > > >> >> standalone entities like bridges and panels with encoders in dt >> > > >> >> w/o >> > > >> >> doing it in the drm code. I *think* this should be Ok with the dt >> > > >> >> guys >> > > >> >> since it is still describing the hardware, but I think we'd have >> > > >> >> to >> > > >> >> make sure it wasn't drm-specific. >> > > >> > >> > > >> > I suppose the question is how much dynamic pipeline construction >> > > >> > there >> > > >> > is, >> > > >> > >> > > >> > even on things like radeon and i915 we have dynamic clock generator >> > > >> > to >> > > >> > crtc to encoder setups, so I worry about static lists per-pipe, so >> > > >> > I >> > > >> > still think just stating all these devices are needed for display >> > > >> > and >> > > >> > a list of valid interconnections between them, then we can have the >> > > >> > generic code model drm crtc/encoders/connectors on that list, and >> > > >> > construct the possible_crtcs /possible_clones etc at that stage. >> > > >> >> > > >> I'm, without excuse, hopeless at devicetree, so there are probably >> > > >> some violations, but something like: >> > > >> >> > > >> display-pipelines { >> > > >> >> > > >> required-elements = <&bridge-a &panel-a &encoder-x &encoder-y >> > > >> >> > > >> &crtc-x &crtc-y>; >> > > >> >> > > >> pipe1 { >> > > >> >> > > >> bridge = <&bridge-a>; >> > > >> encoder = <&encoder-x>; >> > > >> crtc = <&crtc-y>; >> > > >> >> > > >> }; >> > > >> pipe2 { >> > > >> >> > > >> encoder = <&encoder-x>; >> > > >> crtc = <&crtc-x>; >> > > >> >> > > >> }; >> > > >> pipe3 { >> > > >> >> > > >> panel = <&panel-a>; >> > > >> encoder = <&encoder-y>; >> > > >> crtc = <&crtc-y>; >> > > >> >> > > >> }; >> > > >> >> > > >> }; >> > > >> >> > > >> I'm tempted to add connector to the pipe nodes as well, so it's >> > > >> obvious which connector should be used in cases where multiple >> > > >> entities in the pipe implement drm_connector. However, I'm not sure >> > > >> if >> > > >> that would be NACKed by dt people. >> > > >> >> > > >> I'm also not sure if there are too many combinations for i915 and >> > > >> radeon to make this unreasonable. I suppose those devices could just >> > > >> use required-elements and leave the pipe nodes out. >> > > > >> > > > Just to put my two cents in, as one of the people involved into "the >> > > > device tree movement", I'd say that instead of creating artifical >> > > > entities, such as display-pipelines and all of the pipeX'es, device >> > > > tree should represent relations between nodes. >> > > > >> > > > According to the generic DT bindings we already have for >> > > > video-interfaces >> > > > [1] your example connection layout would look as follows: >> > > Hi Tomasz >> > > Thanks for sending this along. >> > > >> > > I think the general consensus is that each drm driver should be >> > > implemented as a singular driver. That is, N:1 binding to driver >> > > mapping, where there are N IP blocks. Optional devices (such as >> > > bridges, panels) probably make sense to spin off as standalone >> > > drivers. >> > >> > I believe this is a huge step backwards from current kernel design >> > standards, which prefer modularity. >> > >> > Having multiple IPs being part of the DRM subsystem in a SoC, it would be >> > nice to have the possibility to compile just a subset of support for them >> > into the kernel and load rest of them as modules. (e.g. basic LCD >> > controller on a mobile phone compiled in and external connectors, like >> > HDMI as modules) >> > >> > Not even saying that from development perspective, a huge single driver >> > would be much more difficult to test and debug, than several smaller >> > drivers, which could be developed separately. >> > >> >> This is the opposite of our experience, though. A series of small drivers >> like what's in drm/exynos can become really tedious/difficult to >> coordinate. If you have separate drivers, everything needs to be >> synchronized, but also has to account for potentially different loading >> order. >> >> It seems you're only thinking about the basic case, where you only support >> a single resolution, no dpms, no suspend to ram... But when you want full >> fledged functionality, then the issues I described become much more >> prevalent. > > I fail to see how this is relevant here. It's fairly clear that even if > a DRM driver is composed of more than a single platform driver, there's > still a single point of coordination (the DRM driver). How does that > have any impact on what features the driver can support? All of the > features will be exposed via DRM, whether you use multiple drivers or a > single monolithic one underneath is completely irrelevant. > +1 I think a single drm driver - all sub drivers are controlled by dpms of top level - is definitely what we should go to but it's not clear that a single drm driver should necessary be a huge single driver yet. Even if we use one more sub drivers based on driver model, we can avoid the issues, the loading and power ordering issues. So I'd like to ask question to Google people. Are there really any cases that the loading and power ordering issues can be incurred in case that a drm driver uses one more sub drivers based on driver model? With the re-factoring patch from Sean, I think Exynos drm driver also has no these issues anymore even through Exynos drm driver uses one more sub drivers based on driver model. That is why it's not clear to me yet. Thanks, Inki Dae > Thierry > > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 5:10 AM, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 05:29:55PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com> wrote: > [...] >> > I believe this is a huge step backwards from current kernel design >> > standards, which prefer modularity. >> >> But it makes things behave in the way that userspace expects, which is >> more important. > > Why would userspace care about the modularity of kernel drivers? The > only thing that userspace should care about is whether there's a DRM > device or not. How the kernel makes that happen should be completely > irrelevant to userspace. What I was referring to was userspace not expecting parts of the drm (crtcs/encoders/connectors) driver to show up incrementally. You can avoid that, but it is more of a hassle currently (ie. most drivers that need to do this, including a few that I've written, end up needing some form of stuff-devices-in-global-variables-that-main-driver-checks-for). BR, -R > Thierry
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 07:14:27AM -0500, Rob Clark wrote: > On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 5:10 AM, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 05:29:55PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com> wrote: > > [...] > >> > I believe this is a huge step backwards from current kernel design > >> > standards, which prefer modularity. > >> > >> But it makes things behave in the way that userspace expects, which is > >> more important. > > > > Why would userspace care about the modularity of kernel drivers? The > > only thing that userspace should care about is whether there's a DRM > > device or not. How the kernel makes that happen should be completely > > irrelevant to userspace. > > What I was referring to was userspace not expecting parts of the drm > (crtcs/encoders/connectors) driver to show up incrementally. You can > avoid that, but it is more of a hassle currently (ie. most drivers > that need to do this, including a few that I've written, end up > needing some form of > stuff-devices-in-global-variables-that-main-driver-checks-for). I must have misunderstood then. I don't think adding hotplug of DRM subdevices is something we would want. And I don't think there's a requirement for that, either. Embedded devices usually have well-defined use-cases, so the configuration is rather static at runtime. As for the global variables, you can do it properly. Granted, it might be more work than global variables, but keeping drivers separated does have advantages. Especially when the devices have completely separated register ranges or clocks or other resources, it's very natural to use one driver per device and glue them together with a composite device construct. Thierry
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: > 2013/11/4 Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>: >> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 08:46:03PM -0700, Stéphane Marchesin wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > Hi Sean, >>> > >>> > On Tuesday 29 of October 2013 16:36:47 Sean Paul wrote: >>> > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com> >>> > wrote: >>> > > > Hi, >>> > > > >>> > > > On Wednesday 23 of October 2013 12:09:06 Sean Paul wrote: >>> > > >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> >>> > wrote: >>> > > >> >>>>> I think we need to start considering a framework where >>> > > >> >>>>> subdrivers >>> > > >> >>>>> just >>> > > >> >>>>> add drm objects themselves, then the toplevel node is >>> > > >> >>>>> responsible >>> > > >> >>>>> for >>> > > >> >>>>> knowing that everything for the current configuration is >>> > > >> >>>>> loaded. >>> > > >> >>>> >>> > > >> >>>> It would be nice to specify the various pieces in dt, then have >>> > > >> >>>> some >>> > > >> >>>> type of drm notifier to the toplevel node when everything has >>> > > >> >>>> been >>> > > >> >>>> probed. Doing it in the dt would allow standalone >>> > > >> >>>> drm_bridge/drm_panel >>> > > >> >>>> drivers to be transparent as far as the device's drm driver is >>> > > >> >>>> concerned. >>> > > >> >>>> >>> > > >> >>>> Sean >>> > > >> >>>> >>> > > >> >>>>> I realise we may need to make changes to the core drm to allow >>> > > >> >>>>> this >>> > > >> >>>>> but we should probably start to create a strategy for fixing >>> > > >> >>>>> the >>> > > >> >>>>> API >>> > > >> >>>>> issues that this throws up. >>> > > >> >>>>> >>> > > >> >>>>> Note I'm not yet advocating for dynamic addition of nodes once >>> > > >> >>>>> the >>> > > >> >>>>> device is in use, or removing them. >>> > > >> >>> >>> > > >> >>> I do wonder if we had some sort of tag in the device tree for any >>> > > >> >>> nodes >>> > > >> >>> involved in the display, and the core drm layer would read that >>> > > >> >>> list, >>> > > >> >>> and when every driver registers tick things off, and when the >>> > > >> >>> last >>> > > >> >>> one >>> > > >> >>> joins we get a callback and init the drm layer, we'd of course >>> > > >> >>> have >>> > > >> >>> the >>> > > >> >>> basic drm layer setup prior to that so we can add the objects as >>> > > >> >>> the >>> > > >> >>> drivers load. It might make development a bit trickier as you'd >>> > > >> >>> need >>> > > >> >>> to make sure someone claimed ownership of all the bits for init >>> > > >> >>> to >>> > > >> >>> proceed.>> >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> Yeah, that's basically what the strawman looked like in my head. >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> Instead of a property in each node, I was thinking of having a >>> > > >> >> separate gfx pipe nodes that would have dt pointers to the various >>> > > >> >> pieces involved in that pipe. This would allow us to associate >>> > > >> >> standalone entities like bridges and panels with encoders in dt >>> > > >> >> w/o >>> > > >> >> doing it in the drm code. I *think* this should be Ok with the dt >>> > > >> >> guys >>> > > >> >> since it is still describing the hardware, but I think we'd have >>> > > >> >> to >>> > > >> >> make sure it wasn't drm-specific. >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> > I suppose the question is how much dynamic pipeline construction >>> > > >> > there >>> > > >> > is, >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> > even on things like radeon and i915 we have dynamic clock generator >>> > > >> > to >>> > > >> > crtc to encoder setups, so I worry about static lists per-pipe, so >>> > > >> > I >>> > > >> > still think just stating all these devices are needed for display >>> > > >> > and >>> > > >> > a list of valid interconnections between them, then we can have the >>> > > >> > generic code model drm crtc/encoders/connectors on that list, and >>> > > >> > construct the possible_crtcs /possible_clones etc at that stage. >>> > > >> >>> > > >> I'm, without excuse, hopeless at devicetree, so there are probably >>> > > >> some violations, but something like: >>> > > >> >>> > > >> display-pipelines { >>> > > >> >>> > > >> required-elements = <&bridge-a &panel-a &encoder-x &encoder-y >>> > > >> >>> > > >> &crtc-x &crtc-y>; >>> > > >> >>> > > >> pipe1 { >>> > > >> >>> > > >> bridge = <&bridge-a>; >>> > > >> encoder = <&encoder-x>; >>> > > >> crtc = <&crtc-y>; >>> > > >> >>> > > >> }; >>> > > >> pipe2 { >>> > > >> >>> > > >> encoder = <&encoder-x>; >>> > > >> crtc = <&crtc-x>; >>> > > >> >>> > > >> }; >>> > > >> pipe3 { >>> > > >> >>> > > >> panel = <&panel-a>; >>> > > >> encoder = <&encoder-y>; >>> > > >> crtc = <&crtc-y>; >>> > > >> >>> > > >> }; >>> > > >> >>> > > >> }; >>> > > >> >>> > > >> I'm tempted to add connector to the pipe nodes as well, so it's >>> > > >> obvious which connector should be used in cases where multiple >>> > > >> entities in the pipe implement drm_connector. However, I'm not sure >>> > > >> if >>> > > >> that would be NACKed by dt people. >>> > > >> >>> > > >> I'm also not sure if there are too many combinations for i915 and >>> > > >> radeon to make this unreasonable. I suppose those devices could just >>> > > >> use required-elements and leave the pipe nodes out. >>> > > > >>> > > > Just to put my two cents in, as one of the people involved into "the >>> > > > device tree movement", I'd say that instead of creating artifical >>> > > > entities, such as display-pipelines and all of the pipeX'es, device >>> > > > tree should represent relations between nodes. >>> > > > >>> > > > According to the generic DT bindings we already have for >>> > > > video-interfaces >>> > > > [1] your example connection layout would look as follows: >>> > > Hi Tomasz >>> > > Thanks for sending this along. >>> > > >>> > > I think the general consensus is that each drm driver should be >>> > > implemented as a singular driver. That is, N:1 binding to driver >>> > > mapping, where there are N IP blocks. Optional devices (such as >>> > > bridges, panels) probably make sense to spin off as standalone >>> > > drivers. >>> > >>> > I believe this is a huge step backwards from current kernel design >>> > standards, which prefer modularity. >>> > >>> > Having multiple IPs being part of the DRM subsystem in a SoC, it would be >>> > nice to have the possibility to compile just a subset of support for them >>> > into the kernel and load rest of them as modules. (e.g. basic LCD >>> > controller on a mobile phone compiled in and external connectors, like >>> > HDMI as modules) >>> > >>> > Not even saying that from development perspective, a huge single driver >>> > would be much more difficult to test and debug, than several smaller >>> > drivers, which could be developed separately. >>> > >>> >>> This is the opposite of our experience, though. A series of small drivers >>> like what's in drm/exynos can become really tedious/difficult to >>> coordinate. If you have separate drivers, everything needs to be >>> synchronized, but also has to account for potentially different loading >>> order. >>> >>> It seems you're only thinking about the basic case, where you only support >>> a single resolution, no dpms, no suspend to ram... But when you want full >>> fledged functionality, then the issues I described become much more >>> prevalent. >> >> I fail to see how this is relevant here. It's fairly clear that even if >> a DRM driver is composed of more than a single platform driver, there's >> still a single point of coordination (the DRM driver). How does that >> have any impact on what features the driver can support? All of the >> features will be exposed via DRM, whether you use multiple drivers or a >> single monolithic one underneath is completely irrelevant. >> > > +1 > > I think a single drm driver - all sub drivers are controlled by dpms > of top level - is definitely what we should go to but it's not clear > that a single drm driver should necessary be a huge single driver yet. > Even if we use one more sub drivers based on driver model, we can > avoid the issues, the loading and power ordering issues. > > So I'd like to ask question to Google people. Are there really any > cases that the loading and power ordering issues can be incurred in > case that a drm driver uses one more sub drivers based on driver > model? I think it makes the code simpler, and more explicit. If you don't support dynamic module loading, what's the point in creating modules? To avoid the init and suspend/resume ordering issues, one must register the subdrivers from the main drm driver, and you must not use pm_ops. So why incur the extra complexity of modules when we only use the probe and that could easily be converted to #ifdef CONFIG_SOME_GFX_BLOCK init_some_gfx_block() #endif Sean > With the re-factoring patch from Sean, I think Exynos drm > driver also has no these issues anymore even through Exynos drm driver > uses one more sub drivers based on driver model. That is why it's not > clear to me yet. > > Thanks, > Inki Dae > >> Thierry >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dri-devel mailing list >> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >> > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 01:52:33PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 07:14:27AM -0500, Rob Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 5:10 AM, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 05:29:55PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote: > > >> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com> wrote: > > > [...] > > >> > I believe this is a huge step backwards from current kernel design > > >> > standards, which prefer modularity. > > >> > > >> But it makes things behave in the way that userspace expects, which is > > >> more important. > > > > > > Why would userspace care about the modularity of kernel drivers? The > > > only thing that userspace should care about is whether there's a DRM > > > device or not. How the kernel makes that happen should be completely > > > irrelevant to userspace. > > > > What I was referring to was userspace not expecting parts of the drm > > (crtcs/encoders/connectors) driver to show up incrementally. You can > > avoid that, but it is more of a hassle currently (ie. most drivers > > that need to do this, including a few that I've written, end up > > needing some form of > > stuff-devices-in-global-variables-that-main-driver-checks-for). > > I must have misunderstood then. I don't think adding hotplug of DRM > subdevices is something we would want. And I don't think there's a > requirement for that, either. Embedded devices usually have well-defined > use-cases, so the configuration is rather static at runtime. > > As for the global variables, you can do it properly. Granted, it might > be more work than global variables, but keeping drivers separated does > have advantages. Especially when the devices have completely separated > register ranges or clocks or other resources, it's very natural to use > one driver per device and glue them together with a composite device > construct. I'm pretty short of ripping out all the midlayer disasters in the drm driver load path. As soon as that's done drivers can defer probing and do all kinds of trick until everything is set up, and then as the very last step register the drm device. Current wip stuff is at http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~danvet/drm/log/?h=drm-init-cleanup Leftover todo items: - rip out bus->set_busid and block the setversion ioctl from doing stupid things on kms drivers. That's the last nail on the drm_bus coffin. - Convert udl over to embedding drm_device and driver-controlled setup sequence and rip out drm_dev->usbdevice as a proof of concept. That should be the death-spell to drm_usb.c I'll let you arm guys figure out how to the same for drm_platform.c ;-) On a quick look there's only very few drivers that use drm_dev->platform_device, which is the last piece to kill really. Cheers, Daniel
> -----Original Message----- > From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 12:44 AM > To: Inki Dae > Cc: Thierry Reding; Laurent Pinchart; dri-devel; Sylwester Nawrocki; > Stéphane Marchesin > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split manager/display/subdrv > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote: > > 2013/11/4 Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>: > >> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 08:46:03PM -0700, Stéphane Marchesin wrote: > >>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> > Hi Sean, > >>> > > >>> > On Tuesday 29 of October 2013 16:36:47 Sean Paul wrote: > >>> > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Tomasz Figa > <tomasz.figa@gmail.com> > >>> > wrote: > >>> > > > Hi, > >>> > > > > >>> > > > On Wednesday 23 of October 2013 12:09:06 Sean Paul wrote: > >>> > > >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Dave Airlie > <airlied@gmail.com> > >>> > wrote: > >>> > > >> >>>>> I think we need to start considering a framework where > >>> > > >> >>>>> subdrivers > >>> > > >> >>>>> just > >>> > > >> >>>>> add drm objects themselves, then the toplevel node is > >>> > > >> >>>>> responsible > >>> > > >> >>>>> for > >>> > > >> >>>>> knowing that everything for the current configuration is > >>> > > >> >>>>> loaded. > >>> > > >> >>>> > >>> > > >> >>>> It would be nice to specify the various pieces in dt, then > have > >>> > > >> >>>> some > >>> > > >> >>>> type of drm notifier to the toplevel node when everything > has > >>> > > >> >>>> been > >>> > > >> >>>> probed. Doing it in the dt would allow standalone > >>> > > >> >>>> drm_bridge/drm_panel > >>> > > >> >>>> drivers to be transparent as far as the device's drm > driver is > >>> > > >> >>>> concerned. > >>> > > >> >>>> > >>> > > >> >>>> Sean > >>> > > >> >>>> > >>> > > >> >>>>> I realise we may need to make changes to the core drm to > allow > >>> > > >> >>>>> this > >>> > > >> >>>>> but we should probably start to create a strategy for > fixing > >>> > > >> >>>>> the > >>> > > >> >>>>> API > >>> > > >> >>>>> issues that this throws up. > >>> > > >> >>>>> > >>> > > >> >>>>> Note I'm not yet advocating for dynamic addition of nodes > once > >>> > > >> >>>>> the > >>> > > >> >>>>> device is in use, or removing them. > >>> > > >> >>> > >>> > > >> >>> I do wonder if we had some sort of tag in the device tree > for any > >>> > > >> >>> nodes > >>> > > >> >>> involved in the display, and the core drm layer would read > that > >>> > > >> >>> list, > >>> > > >> >>> and when every driver registers tick things off, and when > the > >>> > > >> >>> last > >>> > > >> >>> one > >>> > > >> >>> joins we get a callback and init the drm layer, we'd of > course > >>> > > >> >>> have > >>> > > >> >>> the > >>> > > >> >>> basic drm layer setup prior to that so we can add the > objects as > >>> > > >> >>> the > >>> > > >> >>> drivers load. It might make development a bit trickier as > you'd > >>> > > >> >>> need > >>> > > >> >>> to make sure someone claimed ownership of all the bits for > init > >>> > > >> >>> to > >>> > > >> >>> proceed.>> > >>> > > >> >> > >>> > > >> >> Yeah, that's basically what the strawman looked like in my > head. > >>> > > >> >> > >>> > > >> >> Instead of a property in each node, I was thinking of having > a > >>> > > >> >> separate gfx pipe nodes that would have dt pointers to the > various > >>> > > >> >> pieces involved in that pipe. This would allow us to > associate > >>> > > >> >> standalone entities like bridges and panels with encoders in > dt > >>> > > >> >> w/o > >>> > > >> >> doing it in the drm code. I *think* this should be Ok with > the dt > >>> > > >> >> guys > >>> > > >> >> since it is still describing the hardware, but I think we'd > have > >>> > > >> >> to > >>> > > >> >> make sure it wasn't drm-specific. > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > I suppose the question is how much dynamic pipeline > construction > >>> > > >> > there > >>> > > >> > is, > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > even on things like radeon and i915 we have dynamic clock > generator > >>> > > >> > to > >>> > > >> > crtc to encoder setups, so I worry about static lists per- > pipe, so > >>> > > >> > I > >>> > > >> > still think just stating all these devices are needed for > display > >>> > > >> > and > >>> > > >> > a list of valid interconnections between them, then we can > have the > >>> > > >> > generic code model drm crtc/encoders/connectors on that list, > and > >>> > > >> > construct the possible_crtcs /possible_clones etc at that > stage. > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> I'm, without excuse, hopeless at devicetree, so there are > probably > >>> > > >> some violations, but something like: > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> display-pipelines { > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> required-elements = <&bridge-a &panel-a &encoder-x &encoder-y > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> &crtc-x &crtc-y>; > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> pipe1 { > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> bridge = <&bridge-a>; > >>> > > >> encoder = <&encoder-x>; > >>> > > >> crtc = <&crtc-y>; > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> }; > >>> > > >> pipe2 { > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> encoder = <&encoder-x>; > >>> > > >> crtc = <&crtc-x>; > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> }; > >>> > > >> pipe3 { > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> panel = <&panel-a>; > >>> > > >> encoder = <&encoder-y>; > >>> > > >> crtc = <&crtc-y>; > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> }; > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> }; > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> I'm tempted to add connector to the pipe nodes as well, so it's > >>> > > >> obvious which connector should be used in cases where multiple > >>> > > >> entities in the pipe implement drm_connector. However, I'm not > sure > >>> > > >> if > >>> > > >> that would be NACKed by dt people. > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> I'm also not sure if there are too many combinations for i915 > and > >>> > > >> radeon to make this unreasonable. I suppose those devices could > just > >>> > > >> use required-elements and leave the pipe nodes out. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Just to put my two cents in, as one of the people involved into > "the > >>> > > > device tree movement", I'd say that instead of creating > artifical > >>> > > > entities, such as display-pipelines and all of the pipeX'es, > device > >>> > > > tree should represent relations between nodes. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > According to the generic DT bindings we already have for > >>> > > > video-interfaces > >>> > > > [1] your example connection layout would look as follows: > >>> > > Hi Tomasz > >>> > > Thanks for sending this along. > >>> > > > >>> > > I think the general consensus is that each drm driver should be > >>> > > implemented as a singular driver. That is, N:1 binding to driver > >>> > > mapping, where there are N IP blocks. Optional devices (such as > >>> > > bridges, panels) probably make sense to spin off as standalone > >>> > > drivers. > >>> > > >>> > I believe this is a huge step backwards from current kernel design > >>> > standards, which prefer modularity. > >>> > > >>> > Having multiple IPs being part of the DRM subsystem in a SoC, it > would be > >>> > nice to have the possibility to compile just a subset of support for > them > >>> > into the kernel and load rest of them as modules. (e.g. basic LCD > >>> > controller on a mobile phone compiled in and external connectors, > like > >>> > HDMI as modules) > >>> > > >>> > Not even saying that from development perspective, a huge single > driver > >>> > would be much more difficult to test and debug, than several smaller > >>> > drivers, which could be developed separately. > >>> > > >>> > >>> This is the opposite of our experience, though. A series of small > drivers > >>> like what's in drm/exynos can become really tedious/difficult to > >>> coordinate. If you have separate drivers, everything needs to be > >>> synchronized, but also has to account for potentially different > loading > >>> order. > >>> > >>> It seems you're only thinking about the basic case, where you only > support > >>> a single resolution, no dpms, no suspend to ram... But when you want > full > >>> fledged functionality, then the issues I described become much more > >>> prevalent. > >> > >> I fail to see how this is relevant here. It's fairly clear that even if > >> a DRM driver is composed of more than a single platform driver, there's > >> still a single point of coordination (the DRM driver). How does that > >> have any impact on what features the driver can support? All of the > >> features will be exposed via DRM, whether you use multiple drivers or a > >> single monolithic one underneath is completely irrelevant. > >> > > > > +1 > > > > I think a single drm driver - all sub drivers are controlled by dpms > > of top level - is definitely what we should go to but it's not clear > > that a single drm driver should necessary be a huge single driver yet. > > Even if we use one more sub drivers based on driver model, we can > > avoid the issues, the loading and power ordering issues. > > > > So I'd like to ask question to Google people. Are there really any > > cases that the loading and power ordering issues can be incurred in > > case that a drm driver uses one more sub drivers based on driver > > model? > > I think it makes the code simpler, and more explicit. If you don't > support dynamic module loading, what's the point in creating modules? > I think we support dynamic module loading. And please know that Exynos drm has only one integrated module. > To avoid the init and suspend/resume ordering issues, one must > register the subdrivers from the main drm driver, and you must not use > pm_ops. So why incur the extra complexity of modules when we only use > the probe and that could easily be converted to The main reason we must register the sub-drivers is the probing order issue. And I think that we can mitigate the extra complexity of module if we have a helper that it makes a crtc and a encoder/connector to be connected each other regardless of the probing order. For this, you can refer to the below link, https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/daeinki/drm-exynos.git/commit/? h=exynos-bridge-test First, I have just quick implemented this feature to show you and to test. So there would definitely be some problems and ugly codes. The reason I implemented this feature is that composing the display pipe line node to be considered for all crtc, encoder/connector drivers and related ip such as mipi and lvds, would make other side more complex instead of sub drivers. Actually, is there specific something to apply right now? how long we should draw the display pipe line node in our head? So my opinion is let's use non-driver-model based crtc driver and driver-model based a encoder/connector driver. With the helper or similar thing, if we don't need to care the probing order, the DT binding of CRTC devices could be done at top level of drm, and the DT binding of encoder/connector and related devices could be done at separated drivers. So this way I think we could simplify more what we want. And, why I prefer to use encoder/connector driver based on driver-model is these drivers could be based on i2c and spi busses. I don?t see it's reasonable that i2c or spi based driver should be non-driver mode. However, in case using driver-model based drivers, one thing it?s not clear to me is that we should force the drivers not to use their own pm_ops to avoid the power ordering issue. Thanks, Inki Dae > > #ifdef CONFIG_SOME_GFX_BLOCK > init_some_gfx_block() > #endif > > Sean > > > > With the re-factoring patch from Sean, I think Exynos drm > > driver also has no these issues anymore even through Exynos drm driver > > uses one more sub drivers based on driver model. That is why it's not > > clear to me yet. > > > > Thanks, > > Inki Dae > > > >> Thierry > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> dri-devel mailing list > >> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > dri-devel mailing list > > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_connector.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_connector.c index ca270e2..9a16dbe 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_connector.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_connector.c @@ -23,26 +23,20 @@ drm_connector) struct exynos_drm_connector { - struct drm_connector drm_connector; - uint32_t encoder_id; - struct exynos_drm_manager *manager; + struct drm_connector drm_connector; + uint32_t encoder_id; + struct exynos_drm_display *display; }; static int exynos_drm_connector_get_modes(struct drm_connector *connector) { struct exynos_drm_connector *exynos_connector = to_exynos_connector(connector); - struct exynos_drm_manager *manager = exynos_connector->manager; - struct exynos_drm_display_ops *display_ops = manager->display_ops; + struct exynos_drm_display *display = exynos_connector->display; struct edid *edid = NULL; unsigned int count = 0; int ret; - if (!display_ops) { - DRM_DEBUG_KMS("display_ops is null.\n"); - return 0; - } - /* * if get_edid() exists then get_edid() callback of hdmi side * is called to get edid data through i2c interface else @@ -51,8 +45,8 @@ static int exynos_drm_connector_get_modes(struct drm_connector *connector) * P.S. in case of lcd panel, count is always 1 if success * because lcd panel has only one mode. */ - if (display_ops->get_edid) { - edid = display_ops->get_edid(manager->dev, connector); + if (display->ops->get_edid) { + edid = display->ops->get_edid(display, connector); if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(edid)) { ret = PTR_ERR(edid); edid = NULL; @@ -75,8 +69,8 @@ static int exynos_drm_connector_get_modes(struct drm_connector *connector) return 0; } - if (display_ops->get_panel) - panel = display_ops->get_panel(manager->dev); + if (display->ops->get_panel) + panel = display->ops->get_panel(display); else { drm_mode_destroy(connector->dev, mode); return 0; @@ -105,14 +99,13 @@ static int exynos_drm_connector_mode_valid(struct drm_connector *connector, { struct exynos_drm_connector *exynos_connector = to_exynos_connector(connector); - struct exynos_drm_manager *manager = exynos_connector->manager; - struct exynos_drm_display_ops *display_ops = manager->display_ops; + struct exynos_drm_display *display = exynos_connector->display; int ret = MODE_BAD; DRM_DEBUG_KMS("%s\n", __FILE__); - if (display_ops && display_ops->check_mode) - if (!display_ops->check_mode(manager->dev, mode)) + if (display->ops->check_mode) + if (!display->ops->check_mode(display, mode)) ret = MODE_OK; return ret; @@ -151,8 +144,7 @@ static int exynos_drm_connector_fill_modes(struct drm_connector *connector, { struct exynos_drm_connector *exynos_connector = to_exynos_connector(connector); - struct exynos_drm_manager *manager = exynos_connector->manager; - struct exynos_drm_manager_ops *ops = manager->ops; + struct exynos_drm_display *display = exynos_connector->display; unsigned int width, height; width = max_width; @@ -162,8 +154,8 @@ static int exynos_drm_connector_fill_modes(struct drm_connector *connector, * if specific driver want to find desired_mode using maxmum * resolution then get max width and height from that driver. */ - if (ops && ops->get_max_resol) - ops->get_max_resol(manager, &width, &height); + if (display->ops->get_max_resol) + display->ops->get_max_resol(display, &width, &height); return drm_helper_probe_single_connector_modes(connector, width, height); @@ -175,13 +167,11 @@ exynos_drm_connector_detect(struct drm_connector *connector, bool force) { struct exynos_drm_connector *exynos_connector = to_exynos_connector(connector); - struct exynos_drm_manager *manager = exynos_connector->manager; - struct exynos_drm_display_ops *display_ops = - manager->display_ops; + struct exynos_drm_display *display = exynos_connector->display; enum drm_connector_status status = connector_status_disconnected; - if (display_ops && display_ops->is_connected) { - if (display_ops->is_connected(manager->dev)) + if (display->ops->is_connected) { + if (display->ops->is_connected(display)) status = connector_status_connected; else status = connector_status_disconnected; @@ -211,7 +201,7 @@ struct drm_connector *exynos_drm_connector_create(struct drm_device *dev, struct drm_encoder *encoder) { struct exynos_drm_connector *exynos_connector; - struct exynos_drm_manager *manager = exynos_drm_get_manager(encoder); + struct exynos_drm_display *display = exynos_drm_get_display(encoder); struct drm_connector *connector; int type; int err; @@ -222,7 +212,7 @@ struct drm_connector *exynos_drm_connector_create(struct drm_device *dev, connector = &exynos_connector->drm_connector; - switch (manager->display_ops->type) { + switch (display->type) { case EXYNOS_DISPLAY_TYPE_HDMI: type = DRM_MODE_CONNECTOR_HDMIA; connector->interlace_allowed = true; @@ -245,7 +235,7 @@ struct drm_connector *exynos_drm_connector_create(struct drm_device *dev, goto err_connector; exynos_connector->encoder_id = encoder->base.id; - exynos_connector->manager = manager; + exynos_connector->display = display; connector->dpms = DRM_MODE_DPMS_OFF; connector->encoder = encoder; diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_core.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_core.c index 08ca4f9..e76098d 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_core.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_core.c @@ -16,11 +16,14 @@ #include <drm/drmP.h> #include <drm/bridge/ptn3460.h> #include "exynos_drm_drv.h" +#include "exynos_drm_crtc.h" #include "exynos_drm_encoder.h" #include "exynos_drm_connector.h" #include "exynos_drm_fbdev.h" static LIST_HEAD(exynos_drm_subdrv_list); +static LIST_HEAD(exynos_drm_manager_list); +static LIST_HEAD(exynos_drm_display_list); struct bridge_init { struct i2c_client *client; @@ -57,24 +60,28 @@ static int exynos_drm_attach_lcd_bridge(struct drm_device *dev, } static int exynos_drm_create_enc_conn(struct drm_device *dev, - struct exynos_drm_subdrv *subdrv) + struct exynos_drm_display *display) { struct drm_encoder *encoder; struct drm_connector *connector; + struct exynos_drm_manager *manager; int ret; + unsigned long possible_crtcs = 0; - subdrv->manager->dev = subdrv->dev; + /* Find possible crtcs for this display */ + list_for_each_entry(manager, &exynos_drm_manager_list, list) + if (manager->type == display->type) + possible_crtcs |= 1 << manager->pipe; /* create and initialize a encoder for this sub driver. */ - encoder = exynos_drm_encoder_create(dev, subdrv->manager, - (1 << MAX_CRTC) - 1); + encoder = exynos_drm_encoder_create(dev, display, possible_crtcs); if (!encoder) { DRM_ERROR("failed to create encoder\n"); return -EFAULT; } - subdrv->encoder = encoder; + display->encoder = encoder; - if (subdrv->manager->display_ops->type == EXYNOS_DISPLAY_TYPE_LCD) { + if (display->type == EXYNOS_DISPLAY_TYPE_LCD) { ret = exynos_drm_attach_lcd_bridge(dev, encoder); if (ret) return 0; @@ -91,7 +98,7 @@ static int exynos_drm_create_enc_conn(struct drm_device *dev, goto err_destroy_encoder; } - subdrv->connector = connector; + display->connector = connector; return 0; @@ -100,21 +107,6 @@ err_destroy_encoder: return ret; } -static void exynos_drm_destroy_enc_conn(struct exynos_drm_subdrv *subdrv) -{ - if (subdrv->encoder) { - struct drm_encoder *encoder = subdrv->encoder; - encoder->funcs->destroy(encoder); - subdrv->encoder = NULL; - } - - if (subdrv->connector) { - struct drm_connector *connector = subdrv->connector; - connector->funcs->destroy(connector); - subdrv->connector = NULL; - } -} - static int exynos_drm_subdrv_probe(struct drm_device *dev, struct exynos_drm_subdrv *subdrv) { @@ -146,10 +138,98 @@ static void exynos_drm_subdrv_remove(struct drm_device *dev, subdrv->remove(dev, subdrv->dev); } +int exynos_drm_initialize_managers(struct drm_device *dev) +{ + struct exynos_drm_manager *manager, *n; + int ret, pipe = 0; + + list_for_each_entry(manager, &exynos_drm_manager_list, list) { + if (manager->ops->initialize) { + ret = manager->ops->initialize(manager, dev, pipe); + if (ret) { + DRM_ERROR("Mgr init [%d] failed with %d\n", + manager->type, ret); + goto err; + } + } + + manager->drm_dev = dev; + manager->pipe = pipe++; + + ret = exynos_drm_crtc_create(manager); + if (ret) { + DRM_ERROR("CRTC create [%d] failed with %d\n", + manager->type, ret); + goto err; + } + } + return 0; + +err: + list_for_each_entry_safe(manager, n, &exynos_drm_manager_list, list) { + if (pipe-- > 0) + exynos_drm_manager_unregister(manager); + else + list_del(&manager->list); + } + return ret; +} + +void exynos_drm_remove_managers(struct drm_device *dev) +{ + struct exynos_drm_manager *manager, *n; + + list_for_each_entry_safe(manager, n, &exynos_drm_manager_list, list) + exynos_drm_manager_unregister(manager); +} + +int exynos_drm_initialize_displays(struct drm_device *dev) +{ + struct exynos_drm_display *display, *n; + int ret, initialized = 0; + + list_for_each_entry(display, &exynos_drm_display_list, list) { + if (display->ops->initialize) { + ret = display->ops->initialize(display, dev); + if (ret) { + DRM_ERROR("Display init [%d] failed with %d\n", + display->type, ret); + goto err; + } + } + + initialized++; + + ret = exynos_drm_create_enc_conn(dev, display); + if (ret) { + DRM_ERROR("Encoder create [%d] failed with %d\n", + display->type, ret); + goto err; + } + } + return 0; + +err: + list_for_each_entry_safe(display, n, &exynos_drm_display_list, list) { + if (initialized-- > 0) + exynos_drm_display_unregister(display); + else + list_del(&display->list); + } + return ret; +} + +void exynos_drm_remove_displays(struct drm_device *dev) +{ + struct exynos_drm_display *display, *n; + + list_for_each_entry_safe(display, n, &exynos_drm_display_list, list) + exynos_drm_display_unregister(display); +} + int exynos_drm_device_register(struct drm_device *dev) { struct exynos_drm_subdrv *subdrv, *n; - unsigned int fine_cnt = 0; int err; if (!dev) @@ -162,30 +242,8 @@ int exynos_drm_device_register(struct drm_device *dev) list_del(&subdrv->list); continue; } - - /* - * if manager is null then it means that this sub driver - * doesn't need encoder and connector. - */ - if (!subdrv->manager) { - fine_cnt++; - continue; - } - - err = exynos_drm_create_enc_conn(dev, subdrv); - if (err) { - DRM_DEBUG("failed to create encoder and connector.\n"); - exynos_drm_subdrv_remove(dev, subdrv); - list_del(&subdrv->list); - continue; - } - - fine_cnt++; } - if (!fine_cnt) - return -EINVAL; - return 0; } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(exynos_drm_device_register); @@ -201,13 +259,44 @@ int exynos_drm_device_unregister(struct drm_device *dev) list_for_each_entry(subdrv, &exynos_drm_subdrv_list, list) { exynos_drm_subdrv_remove(dev, subdrv); - exynos_drm_destroy_enc_conn(subdrv); } return 0; } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(exynos_drm_device_unregister); +int exynos_drm_manager_register(struct exynos_drm_manager *manager) +{ + BUG_ON(!manager->ops); + list_add_tail(&manager->list, &exynos_drm_manager_list); + return 0; +} + +int exynos_drm_manager_unregister(struct exynos_drm_manager *manager) +{ + if (manager->ops->remove) + manager->ops->remove(manager); + + list_del(&manager->list); + return 0; +} + +int exynos_drm_display_register(struct exynos_drm_display *display) +{ + BUG_ON(!display->ops); + list_add_tail(&display->list, &exynos_drm_display_list); + return 0; +} + +int exynos_drm_display_unregister(struct exynos_drm_display *display) +{ + if (display->ops->remove) + display->ops->remove(display); + + list_del(&display->list); + return 0; +} + int exynos_drm_subdrv_register(struct exynos_drm_subdrv *subdrv) { if (!subdrv) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_crtc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_crtc.c index ebc0150..347d62d 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_crtc.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_crtc.c @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ enum exynos_crtc_mode { * * @drm_crtc: crtc object. * @drm_plane: pointer of private plane object for this crtc + * @manager: the manager associated with this crtc * @pipe: a crtc index created at load() with a new crtc object creation * and the crtc object would be set to private->crtc array * to get a crtc object corresponding to this pipe from private->crtc @@ -46,6 +47,7 @@ enum exynos_crtc_mode { struct exynos_drm_crtc { struct drm_crtc drm_crtc; struct drm_plane *plane; + struct exynos_drm_manager *manager; unsigned int pipe; unsigned int dpms; enum exynos_crtc_mode mode; @@ -56,6 +58,7 @@ struct exynos_drm_crtc { static void exynos_drm_crtc_dpms(struct drm_crtc *crtc, int mode) { struct exynos_drm_crtc *exynos_crtc = to_exynos_crtc(crtc); + struct exynos_drm_manager *manager = exynos_crtc->manager; DRM_DEBUG_KMS("crtc[%d] mode[%d]\n", crtc->base.id, mode); @@ -71,7 +74,9 @@ static void exynos_drm_crtc_dpms(struct drm_crtc *crtc, int mode) drm_vblank_off(crtc->dev, exynos_crtc->pipe); } - exynos_drm_fn_encoder(crtc, &mode, exynos_drm_encoder_crtc_dpms); + if (manager->ops->dpms) + manager->ops->dpms(manager, mode); + exynos_crtc->dpms = mode; } @@ -83,9 +88,15 @@ static void exynos_drm_crtc_prepare(struct drm_crtc *crtc) static void exynos_drm_crtc_commit(struct drm_crtc *crtc) { struct exynos_drm_crtc *exynos_crtc = to_exynos_crtc(crtc); + struct exynos_drm_manager *manager = exynos_crtc->manager; exynos_drm_crtc_dpms(crtc, DRM_MODE_DPMS_ON); + exynos_plane_commit(exynos_crtc->plane); + + if (manager->ops->commit) + manager->ops->commit(manager); + exynos_plane_dpms(exynos_crtc->plane, DRM_MODE_DPMS_ON); } @@ -107,7 +118,6 @@ exynos_drm_crtc_mode_set(struct drm_crtc *crtc, struct drm_display_mode *mode, struct drm_plane *plane = exynos_crtc->plane; unsigned int crtc_w; unsigned int crtc_h; - int pipe = exynos_crtc->pipe; int ret; /* @@ -127,8 +137,6 @@ exynos_drm_crtc_mode_set(struct drm_crtc *crtc, struct drm_display_mode *mode, plane->crtc = crtc; plane->fb = crtc->fb; - exynos_drm_fn_encoder(crtc, &pipe, exynos_drm_encoder_crtc_pipe); - return 0; } @@ -318,21 +326,24 @@ static void exynos_drm_crtc_attach_mode_property(struct drm_crtc *crtc) drm_object_attach_property(&crtc->base, prop, 0); } -int exynos_drm_crtc_create(struct drm_device *dev, unsigned int nr) +int exynos_drm_crtc_create(struct exynos_drm_manager *manager) { struct exynos_drm_crtc *exynos_crtc; - struct exynos_drm_private *private = dev->dev_private; + struct exynos_drm_private *private = manager->drm_dev->dev_private; struct drm_crtc *crtc; exynos_crtc = kzalloc(sizeof(*exynos_crtc), GFP_KERNEL); if (!exynos_crtc) return -ENOMEM; - exynos_crtc->pipe = nr; - exynos_crtc->dpms = DRM_MODE_DPMS_OFF; init_waitqueue_head(&exynos_crtc->pending_flip_queue); atomic_set(&exynos_crtc->pending_flip, 0); - exynos_crtc->plane = exynos_plane_init(dev, 1 << nr, true); + + exynos_crtc->dpms = DRM_MODE_DPMS_OFF; + exynos_crtc->manager = manager; + exynos_crtc->pipe = manager->pipe; + exynos_crtc->plane = exynos_plane_init(manager->drm_dev, + 1 << manager->pipe, true); if (!exynos_crtc->plane) { kfree(exynos_crtc); return -ENOMEM; @@ -340,9 +351,9 @@ int exynos_drm_crtc_create(struct drm_device *dev, unsigned int nr) crtc = &exynos_crtc->drm_crtc; - private->crtc[nr] = crtc; + private->crtc[manager->pipe] = crtc; - drm_crtc_init(dev, crtc, &exynos_crtc_funcs); + drm_crtc_init(manager->drm_dev, crtc, &exynos_crtc_funcs); drm_crtc_helper_add(crtc, &exynos_crtc_helper_funcs); exynos_drm_crtc_attach_mode_property(crtc); @@ -350,39 +361,41 @@ int exynos_drm_crtc_create(struct drm_device *dev, unsigned int nr) return 0; } -int exynos_drm_crtc_enable_vblank(struct drm_device *dev, int crtc) +int exynos_drm_crtc_enable_vblank(struct drm_device *dev, int pipe) { struct exynos_drm_private *private = dev->dev_private; struct exynos_drm_crtc *exynos_crtc = - to_exynos_crtc(private->crtc[crtc]); + to_exynos_crtc(private->crtc[pipe]); + struct exynos_drm_manager *manager = exynos_crtc->manager; if (exynos_crtc->dpms != DRM_MODE_DPMS_ON) return -EPERM; - exynos_drm_fn_encoder(private->crtc[crtc], &crtc, - exynos_drm_enable_vblank); + if (manager->ops->enable_vblank) + manager->ops->enable_vblank(manager); return 0; } -void exynos_drm_crtc_disable_vblank(struct drm_device *dev, int crtc) +void exynos_drm_crtc_disable_vblank(struct drm_device *dev, int pipe) { struct exynos_drm_private *private = dev->dev_private; struct exynos_drm_crtc *exynos_crtc = - to_exynos_crtc(private->crtc[crtc]); + to_exynos_crtc(private->crtc[pipe]); + struct exynos_drm_manager *manager = exynos_crtc->manager; if (exynos_crtc->dpms != DRM_MODE_DPMS_ON) return; - exynos_drm_fn_encoder(private->crtc[crtc], &crtc, - exynos_drm_disable_vblank); + if (manager->ops->disable_vblank) + manager->ops->disable_vblank(manager); } -void exynos_drm_crtc_finish_pageflip(struct drm_device *dev, int crtc) +void exynos_drm_crtc_finish_pageflip(struct drm_device *dev, int pipe) { struct exynos_drm_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private; struct drm_pending_vblank_event *e, *t; - struct drm_crtc *drm_crtc = dev_priv->crtc[crtc]; + struct drm_crtc *drm_crtc = dev_priv->crtc[pipe]; struct exynos_drm_crtc *exynos_crtc = to_exynos_crtc(drm_crtc); unsigned long flags; @@ -391,15 +404,71 @@ void exynos_drm_crtc_finish_pageflip(struct drm_device *dev, int crtc) list_for_each_entry_safe(e, t, &dev_priv->pageflip_event_list, base.link) { /* if event's pipe isn't same as crtc then ignore it. */ - if (crtc != e->pipe) + if (pipe != e->pipe) continue; list_del(&e->base.link); drm_send_vblank_event(dev, -1, e); - drm_vblank_put(dev, crtc); + drm_vblank_put(dev, pipe); atomic_set(&exynos_crtc->pending_flip, 0); wake_up(&exynos_crtc->pending_flip_queue); } spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->event_lock, flags); } + +void exynos_drm_crtc_plane_mode_set(struct drm_crtc *crtc, + struct exynos_drm_overlay *overlay) +{ + struct exynos_drm_manager *manager = to_exynos_crtc(crtc)->manager; + + if (manager->ops->win_mode_set) + manager->ops->win_mode_set(manager, overlay); +} + +void exynos_drm_crtc_plane_commit(struct drm_crtc *crtc, int zpos) +{ + struct exynos_drm_manager *manager = to_exynos_crtc(crtc)->manager; + + if (manager->ops->win_commit) + manager->ops->win_commit(manager, zpos); +} + +void exynos_drm_crtc_plane_enable(struct drm_crtc *crtc, int zpos) +{ + struct exynos_drm_manager *manager = to_exynos_crtc(crtc)->manager; + + if (manager->ops->win_enable) + manager->ops->win_enable(manager, zpos); +} + +void exynos_drm_crtc_plane_disable(struct drm_crtc *crtc, int zpos) +{ + struct exynos_drm_manager *manager = to_exynos_crtc(crtc)->manager; + + if (manager->ops->win_disable) + manager->ops->win_disable(manager, zpos); +} + +void exynos_drm_crtc_complete_scanout(struct drm_framebuffer *fb) +{ + struct exynos_drm_manager *manager; + struct drm_device *dev = fb->dev; + struct drm_crtc *crtc; + + /* + * make sure that overlay data are updated to real hardware + * for all encoders. + */ + list_for_each_entry(crtc, &dev->mode_config.crtc_list, head) { + manager = to_exynos_crtc(crtc)->manager; + + /* + * wait for vblank interrupt + * - this makes sure that overlay data are updated to + * real hardware. + */ + if (manager->ops->wait_for_vblank) + manager->ops->wait_for_vblank(manager); + } +} diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_crtc.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_crtc.h index 3e197e6..c27b66c 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_crtc.h +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_crtc.h @@ -15,9 +15,21 @@ #ifndef _EXYNOS_DRM_CRTC_H_ #define _EXYNOS_DRM_CRTC_H_ -int exynos_drm_crtc_create(struct drm_device *dev, unsigned int nr); -int exynos_drm_crtc_enable_vblank(struct drm_device *dev, int crtc); -void exynos_drm_crtc_disable_vblank(struct drm_device *dev, int crtc); -void exynos_drm_crtc_finish_pageflip(struct drm_device *dev, int crtc); +struct drm_device; +struct drm_crtc; +struct exynos_drm_manager; +struct exynos_drm_overlay; + +int exynos_drm_crtc_create(struct exynos_drm_manager *manager); +int exynos_drm_crtc_enable_vblank(struct drm_device *dev, int pipe); +void exynos_drm_crtc_disable_vblank(struct drm_device *dev, int pipe); +void exynos_drm_crtc_finish_pageflip(struct drm_device *dev, int pipe); +void exynos_drm_crtc_complete_scanout(struct drm_framebuffer *fb); + +void exynos_drm_crtc_plane_mode_set(struct drm_crtc *crtc, + struct exynos_drm_overlay *overlay); +void exynos_drm_crtc_plane_commit(struct drm_crtc *crtc, int zpos); +void exynos_drm_crtc_plane_enable(struct drm_crtc *crtc, int zpos); +void exynos_drm_crtc_plane_disable(struct drm_crtc *crtc, int zpos); #endif diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_drv.c index 617748e..250903c 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_drv.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_drv.c @@ -72,15 +72,9 @@ static int exynos_drm_load(struct drm_device *dev, unsigned long flags) exynos_drm_mode_config_init(dev); - /* - * EXYNOS4 is enough to have two CRTCs and each crtc would be used - * without dependency of hardware. - */ - for (nr = 0; nr < MAX_CRTC; nr++) { - ret = exynos_drm_crtc_create(dev, nr); - if (ret) - goto err_release_iommu_mapping; - } + ret = exynos_drm_initialize_managers(dev); + if (ret) + goto err_mode_config_cleanup; for (nr = 0; nr < MAX_PLANE; nr++) { struct drm_plane *plane; @@ -88,12 +82,16 @@ static int exynos_drm_load(struct drm_device *dev, unsigned long flags) plane = exynos_plane_init(dev, possible_crtcs, false); if (!plane) - goto err_release_iommu_mapping; + goto err_manager_cleanup; } + ret = exynos_drm_initialize_displays(dev); + if (ret) + goto err_manager_cleanup; + ret = drm_vblank_init(dev, MAX_CRTC); if (ret) - goto err_release_iommu_mapping; + goto err_display_cleanup; /* * probe sub drivers such as display controller and hdmi driver, @@ -125,7 +123,12 @@ err_drm_device: exynos_drm_device_unregister(dev); err_vblank: drm_vblank_cleanup(dev); -err_release_iommu_mapping: +err_display_cleanup: + exynos_drm_remove_displays(dev); +err_manager_cleanup: + exynos_drm_remove_managers(dev); +err_mode_config_cleanup: + drm_mode_config_cleanup(dev); drm_release_iommu_mapping(dev); err_crtc: drm_mode_config_cleanup(dev); @@ -140,6 +143,8 @@ static int exynos_drm_unload(struct drm_device *dev) exynos_drm_device_unregister(dev); drm_vblank_cleanup(dev); drm_kms_helper_poll_fini(dev); + exynos_drm_remove_displays(dev); + exynos_drm_remove_managers(dev); drm_mode_config_cleanup(dev); drm_release_iommu_mapping(dev); diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_drv.h index e31c088..dc730e5 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_drv.h +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_drv.h @@ -122,34 +122,68 @@ struct exynos_drm_overlay { * Exynos DRM Display Structure. * - this structure is common to analog tv, digital tv and lcd panel. * - * @type: one of EXYNOS_DISPLAY_TYPE_LCD and HDMI. * @initialize: initializes the display with drm_dev + * @remove: cleans up the display for removal * @is_connected: check for that display is connected or not. + * @get_max_resol: get maximum resolution to specific hardware. * @get_edid: get edid modes from display driver. * @get_panel: get panel object from display driver. + * @mode_fixup: fix mode data comparing to hw specific display mode. + * @mode_set: convert drm_display_mode to hw specific display mode and + * would be called by encoder->mode_set(). * @check_mode: check if mode is valid or not. * @dpms: display device on or off. + * @commit: apply changes to hw */ +struct exynos_drm_display; struct exynos_drm_display_ops { + int (*initialize)(struct exynos_drm_display *display, + struct drm_device *drm_dev); + void (*remove)(struct exynos_drm_display *display); + bool (*is_connected)(struct exynos_drm_display *display); + void (*get_max_resol)(struct exynos_drm_display *display, + unsigned int *width, + unsigned int *height); + struct edid *(*get_edid)(struct exynos_drm_display *display, + struct drm_connector *connector); + void *(*get_panel)(struct exynos_drm_display *display); + void (*mode_fixup)(struct exynos_drm_display *display, + struct drm_connector *connector, + const struct drm_display_mode *mode, + struct drm_display_mode *adjusted_mode); + void (*mode_set)(struct exynos_drm_display *display, + struct drm_display_mode *mode); + int (*check_mode)(struct exynos_drm_display *display, + struct drm_display_mode *mode); + void (*dpms)(struct exynos_drm_display *display, int mode); + void (*commit)(struct exynos_drm_display *display); +}; + +/* + * Exynos drm display structure, maps 1:1 with an encoder/connector + * + * @list: the list entry for this manager + * @type: one of EXYNOS_DISPLAY_TYPE_LCD and HDMI. + * @encoder: encoder object this display maps to + * @connector: connector object this display maps to + * @ops: pointer to callbacks for exynos drm specific functionality + * @ctx: A pointer to the display's implementation specific context + */ +struct exynos_drm_display { + struct list_head list; enum exynos_drm_output_type type; - int (*initialize)(struct device *dev, struct drm_device *drm_dev); - bool (*is_connected)(struct device *dev); - struct edid *(*get_edid)(struct device *dev, - struct drm_connector *connector); - void *(*get_panel)(struct device *dev); - int (*check_mode)(struct device *dev, struct drm_display_mode *mode); - int (*dpms)(struct device *dev, int mode); + struct drm_encoder *encoder; + struct drm_connector *connector; + struct exynos_drm_display_ops *ops; + void *ctx; }; /* * Exynos drm manager ops * * @initialize: initializes the manager with drm_dev + * @remove: cleans up the manager for removal * @dpms: control device power. - * @mode_fixup: fix mode data comparing to hw specific display mode. - * @mode_set: convert drm_display_mode to hw specific display mode and - * would be called by encoder->mode_set(). - * @get_max_resol: get maximum resolution to specific hardware. * @commit: set current hw specific display mode to hw. * @enable_vblank: specific driver callback for enabling vblank interrupt. * @disable_vblank: specific driver callback for disabling vblank interrupt. @@ -163,15 +197,9 @@ struct exynos_drm_display_ops { struct exynos_drm_manager; struct exynos_drm_manager_ops { int (*initialize)(struct exynos_drm_manager *mgr, - struct drm_device *drm_dev); + struct drm_device *drm_dev, int pipe); + void (*remove)(struct exynos_drm_manager *mgr); void (*dpms)(struct exynos_drm_manager *mgr, int mode); - void (*mode_fixup)(struct exynos_drm_manager *mgr, - struct drm_connector *connector, - const struct drm_display_mode *mode, - struct drm_display_mode *adjusted_mode); - void (*mode_set)(struct exynos_drm_manager *mgr, void *mode); - void (*get_max_resol)(struct exynos_drm_manager *mgr, - unsigned int *width, unsigned int *height); void (*commit)(struct exynos_drm_manager *mgr); int (*enable_vblank)(struct exynos_drm_manager *mgr); void (*disable_vblank)(struct exynos_drm_manager *mgr); @@ -184,25 +212,21 @@ struct exynos_drm_manager_ops { }; /* - * Exynos drm common manager structure. + * Exynos drm common manager structure, maps 1:1 with a crtc * - * @dev: pointer to device object for subdrv device driver. - * sub drivers such as display controller or hdmi driver, - * have their own device object. - * @ops: pointer to callbacks for exynos drm specific framebuffer. - * these callbacks should be set by specific drivers such fimd - * or hdmi driver and are used to control hardware global registers. - * @display: pointer to callbacks for exynos drm specific framebuffer. - * these callbacks should be set by specific drivers such fimd - * or hdmi driver and are used to control display devices such as - * analog tv, digital tv and lcd panel and also get timing data for them. + * @list: the list entry for this manager + * @type: one of EXYNOS_DISPLAY_TYPE_LCD and HDMI. + * @drm_dev: pointer to the drm device + * @pipe: the pipe number for this crtc/manager + * @ops: pointer to callbacks for exynos drm specific functionality * @ctx: A pointer to the manager's implementation specific context */ struct exynos_drm_manager { - struct device *dev; + struct list_head list; + enum exynos_drm_output_type type; + struct drm_device *drm_dev; int pipe; struct exynos_drm_manager_ops *ops; - struct exynos_drm_display_ops *display_ops; void *ctx; }; @@ -267,14 +291,11 @@ struct exynos_drm_private { * by probe callback. * @open: this would be called with drm device file open. * @close: this would be called with drm device file close. - * @encoder: encoder object owned by this sub driver. - * @connector: connector object owned by this sub driver. */ struct exynos_drm_subdrv { struct list_head list; struct device *dev; struct drm_device *drm_dev; - struct exynos_drm_manager *manager; int (*probe)(struct drm_device *drm_dev, struct device *dev); void (*remove)(struct drm_device *drm_dev, struct device *dev); @@ -282,9 +303,6 @@ struct exynos_drm_subdrv { struct drm_file *file); void (*close)(struct drm_device *drm_dev, struct device *dev, struct drm_file *file); - - struct drm_encoder *encoder; - struct drm_connector *connector; }; /* @@ -299,6 +317,16 @@ int exynos_drm_device_register(struct drm_device *dev); */ int exynos_drm_device_unregister(struct drm_device *dev); +int exynos_drm_initialize_managers(struct drm_device *dev); +void exynos_drm_remove_managers(struct drm_device *dev); +int exynos_drm_initialize_displays(struct drm_device *dev); +void exynos_drm_remove_displays(struct drm_device *dev); + +int exynos_drm_manager_register(struct exynos_drm_manager *manager); +int exynos_drm_manager_unregister(struct exynos_drm_manager *manager); +int exynos_drm_display_register(struct exynos_drm_display *display); +int exynos_drm_display_unregister(struct exynos_drm_display *display); + /* * this function would be called by sub drivers such as display controller * or hdmi driver to register this sub driver object to exynos drm driver diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_encoder.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_encoder.c index efe4e60..d4ae664 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_encoder.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_encoder.c @@ -26,24 +26,23 @@ * exynos specific encoder structure. * * @drm_encoder: encoder object. - * @manager: specific encoder has its own manager to control a hardware - * appropriately and we can access a hardware drawing on this manager. + * @display: the display structure that maps to this encoder */ struct exynos_drm_encoder { struct drm_crtc *old_crtc; struct drm_encoder drm_encoder; - struct exynos_drm_manager *manager; + struct exynos_drm_display *display; }; static void exynos_drm_encoder_dpms(struct drm_encoder *encoder, int mode) { - struct exynos_drm_manager *manager = exynos_drm_get_manager(encoder); - struct exynos_drm_display_ops *display_ops = manager->display_ops; + struct exynos_drm_encoder *exynos_encoder = to_exynos_encoder(encoder); + struct exynos_drm_display *display = exynos_encoder->display; DRM_DEBUG_KMS("encoder dpms: %d\n", mode); - if (display_ops && display_ops->dpms) - display_ops->dpms(manager->ctx, mode); + if (display->ops->dpms) + display->ops->dpms(display, mode); } static bool @@ -52,15 +51,17 @@ exynos_drm_encoder_mode_fixup(struct drm_encoder *encoder, struct drm_display_mode *adjusted_mode) { struct drm_device *dev = encoder->dev; + struct exynos_drm_encoder *exynos_encoder = to_exynos_encoder(encoder); + struct exynos_drm_display *display = exynos_encoder->display; struct drm_connector *connector; - struct exynos_drm_manager *manager = exynos_drm_get_manager(encoder); - struct exynos_drm_manager_ops *manager_ops = manager->ops; list_for_each_entry(connector, &dev->mode_config.connector_list, head) { - if (connector->encoder == encoder) - if (manager_ops && manager_ops->mode_fixup) - manager_ops->mode_fixup(manager, connector, - mode, adjusted_mode); + if (connector->encoder != encoder) + continue; + + if (display->ops->mode_fixup) + display->ops->mode_fixup(display, connector, mode, + adjusted_mode); } return true; @@ -102,8 +103,7 @@ static void exynos_drm_encoder_mode_set(struct drm_encoder *encoder, { struct drm_device *dev = encoder->dev; struct drm_connector *connector; - struct exynos_drm_manager *manager; - struct exynos_drm_manager_ops *manager_ops; + struct exynos_drm_display *display; list_for_each_entry(connector, &dev->mode_config.connector_list, head) { if (connector->encoder == encoder) { @@ -123,11 +123,11 @@ static void exynos_drm_encoder_mode_set(struct drm_encoder *encoder, encoder->crtc); } - manager = exynos_drm_get_manager(encoder); - manager_ops = manager->ops; + display = exynos_encoder->display; - if (manager_ops && manager_ops->mode_set) - manager_ops->mode_set(manager, adjusted_mode); + if (display->ops->mode_set) + display->ops->mode_set(display, + adjusted_mode); exynos_encoder->old_crtc = encoder->crtc; } @@ -142,39 +142,15 @@ static void exynos_drm_encoder_prepare(struct drm_encoder *encoder) static void exynos_drm_encoder_commit(struct drm_encoder *encoder) { struct exynos_drm_encoder *exynos_encoder = to_exynos_encoder(encoder); - struct exynos_drm_manager *manager = exynos_encoder->manager; - struct exynos_drm_manager_ops *manager_ops = manager->ops; - - if (manager_ops && manager_ops->commit) - manager_ops->commit(manager); -} + struct exynos_drm_display *display = exynos_encoder->display; -void exynos_drm_encoder_complete_scanout(struct drm_framebuffer *fb) -{ - struct exynos_drm_encoder *exynos_encoder; - struct exynos_drm_manager_ops *ops; - struct drm_device *dev = fb->dev; - struct drm_encoder *encoder; + if (display->ops->dpms) + display->ops->dpms(display, DRM_MODE_DPMS_ON); - /* - * make sure that overlay data are updated to real hardware - * for all encoders. - */ - list_for_each_entry(encoder, &dev->mode_config.encoder_list, head) { - exynos_encoder = to_exynos_encoder(encoder); - ops = exynos_encoder->manager->ops; - - /* - * wait for vblank interrupt - * - this makes sure that overlay data are updated to - * real hardware. - */ - if (ops->wait_for_vblank) - ops->wait_for_vblank(exynos_encoder->manager); - } + if (display->ops->commit) + display->ops->commit(display); } - static void exynos_drm_encoder_disable(struct drm_encoder *encoder) { struct drm_plane *plane; @@ -200,10 +176,7 @@ static struct drm_encoder_helper_funcs exynos_encoder_helper_funcs = { static void exynos_drm_encoder_destroy(struct drm_encoder *encoder) { - struct exynos_drm_encoder *exynos_encoder = - to_exynos_encoder(encoder); - - exynos_encoder->manager->pipe = -1; + struct exynos_drm_encoder *exynos_encoder = to_exynos_encoder(encoder); drm_encoder_cleanup(encoder); kfree(exynos_encoder); @@ -218,13 +191,12 @@ static unsigned int exynos_drm_encoder_clones(struct drm_encoder *encoder) struct drm_encoder *clone; struct drm_device *dev = encoder->dev; struct exynos_drm_encoder *exynos_encoder = to_exynos_encoder(encoder); - struct exynos_drm_display_ops *display_ops = - exynos_encoder->manager->display_ops; + struct exynos_drm_display *display = exynos_encoder->display; unsigned int clone_mask = 0; int cnt = 0; list_for_each_entry(clone, &dev->mode_config.encoder_list, head) { - switch (display_ops->type) { + switch (display->type) { case EXYNOS_DISPLAY_TYPE_LCD: case EXYNOS_DISPLAY_TYPE_HDMI: case EXYNOS_DISPLAY_TYPE_VIDI: @@ -248,24 +220,20 @@ void exynos_drm_encoder_setup(struct drm_device *dev) struct drm_encoder * exynos_drm_encoder_create(struct drm_device *dev, - struct exynos_drm_manager *manager, + struct exynos_drm_display *display, unsigned long possible_crtcs) { struct drm_encoder *encoder; struct exynos_drm_encoder *exynos_encoder; - int ret; - if (!manager || !possible_crtcs) - return NULL; - - if (!manager->dev) + if (!possible_crtcs) return NULL; exynos_encoder = kzalloc(sizeof(*exynos_encoder), GFP_KERNEL); if (!exynos_encoder) return NULL; - exynos_encoder->manager = manager; + exynos_encoder->display = display; encoder = &exynos_encoder->drm_encoder; encoder->possible_crtcs = possible_crtcs; @@ -276,174 +244,12 @@ exynos_drm_encoder_create(struct drm_device *dev, drm_encoder_helper_add(encoder, &exynos_encoder_helper_funcs); - if (manager->ops && manager->ops->initialize) { - ret = manager->ops->initialize(manager, dev); - if (ret) { - DRM_ERROR("Manager initialize failed %d\n", ret); - goto error; - } - } - - if (manager->display_ops && manager->display_ops->initialize) { - ret = manager->display_ops->initialize(manager->dev, dev); - if (ret) { - DRM_ERROR("Display initialize failed %d\n", ret); - goto error; - } - } - DRM_DEBUG_KMS("encoder has been created\n"); return encoder; - -error: - exynos_drm_encoder_destroy(&exynos_encoder->drm_encoder); - return NULL; } -struct exynos_drm_manager *exynos_drm_get_manager(struct drm_encoder *encoder) +struct exynos_drm_display *exynos_drm_get_display(struct drm_encoder *encoder) { - return to_exynos_encoder(encoder)->manager; -} - -void exynos_drm_fn_encoder(struct drm_crtc *crtc, void *data, - void (*fn)(struct drm_encoder *, void *)) -{ - struct drm_device *dev = crtc->dev; - struct drm_encoder *encoder; - struct exynos_drm_private *private = dev->dev_private; - struct exynos_drm_manager *manager; - - list_for_each_entry(encoder, &dev->mode_config.encoder_list, head) { - /* - * if crtc is detached from encoder, check pipe, - * otherwise check crtc attached to encoder - */ - if (!encoder->crtc) { - manager = to_exynos_encoder(encoder)->manager; - if (manager->pipe < 0 || - private->crtc[manager->pipe] != crtc) - continue; - } else { - if (encoder->crtc != crtc) - continue; - } - - fn(encoder, data); - } -} - -void exynos_drm_enable_vblank(struct drm_encoder *encoder, void *data) -{ - struct exynos_drm_manager *manager = - to_exynos_encoder(encoder)->manager; - struct exynos_drm_manager_ops *manager_ops = manager->ops; - int crtc = *(int *)data; - - if (manager->pipe != crtc) - return; - - if (manager_ops->enable_vblank) - manager_ops->enable_vblank(manager); -} - -void exynos_drm_disable_vblank(struct drm_encoder *encoder, void *data) -{ - struct exynos_drm_manager *manager = - to_exynos_encoder(encoder)->manager; - struct exynos_drm_manager_ops *manager_ops = manager->ops; - int crtc = *(int *)data; - - if (manager->pipe != crtc) - return; - - if (manager_ops->disable_vblank) - manager_ops->disable_vblank(manager); -} - -void exynos_drm_encoder_crtc_dpms(struct drm_encoder *encoder, void *data) -{ - struct exynos_drm_encoder *exynos_encoder = to_exynos_encoder(encoder); - struct exynos_drm_manager *manager = exynos_encoder->manager; - struct exynos_drm_manager_ops *manager_ops = manager->ops; - int mode = *(int *)data; - - if (manager_ops && manager_ops->dpms) - manager_ops->dpms(manager, mode); - - /* - * if this condition is ok then it means that the crtc is already - * detached from encoder and last function for detaching is properly - * done, so clear pipe from manager to prevent repeated call. - */ - if (mode > DRM_MODE_DPMS_ON) { - if (!encoder->crtc) - manager->pipe = -1; - } -} - -void exynos_drm_encoder_crtc_pipe(struct drm_encoder *encoder, void *data) -{ - struct exynos_drm_manager *manager = - to_exynos_encoder(encoder)->manager; - int pipe = *(int *)data; - - /* - * when crtc is detached from encoder, this pipe is used - * to select manager operation - */ - manager->pipe = pipe; -} - -void exynos_drm_encoder_plane_mode_set(struct drm_encoder *encoder, void *data) -{ - struct exynos_drm_manager *manager = - to_exynos_encoder(encoder)->manager; - struct exynos_drm_manager_ops *manager_ops = manager->ops; - struct exynos_drm_overlay *overlay = data; - - if (manager_ops && manager_ops->win_mode_set) - manager_ops->win_mode_set(manager, overlay); -} - -void exynos_drm_encoder_plane_commit(struct drm_encoder *encoder, void *data) -{ - struct exynos_drm_manager *manager = - to_exynos_encoder(encoder)->manager; - struct exynos_drm_manager_ops *manager_ops = manager->ops; - int zpos = DEFAULT_ZPOS; - - if (data) - zpos = *(int *)data; - - if (manager_ops && manager_ops->win_commit) - manager_ops->win_commit(manager, zpos); -} - -void exynos_drm_encoder_plane_enable(struct drm_encoder *encoder, void *data) -{ - struct exynos_drm_manager *manager = - to_exynos_encoder(encoder)->manager; - struct exynos_drm_manager_ops *manager_ops = manager->ops; - int zpos = DEFAULT_ZPOS; - - if (data) - zpos = *(int *)data; - - if (manager_ops && manager_ops->win_enable) - manager_ops->win_enable(manager, zpos); -} - -void exynos_drm_encoder_plane_disable(struct drm_encoder *encoder, void *data) -{ - struct exynos_drm_manager *manager = - to_exynos_encoder(encoder)->manager; - struct exynos_drm_manager_ops *manager_ops = manager->ops; - int zpos = DEFAULT_ZPOS; - - if (data) - zpos = *(int *)data; - - if (manager_ops && manager_ops->win_disable) - manager_ops->win_disable(manager, zpos); + return to_exynos_encoder(encoder)->display; } diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_encoder.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_encoder.h index 0f3e5e2..b7a1620 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_encoder.h +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_encoder.h @@ -18,20 +18,8 @@ struct exynos_drm_manager; void exynos_drm_encoder_setup(struct drm_device *dev); struct drm_encoder *exynos_drm_encoder_create(struct drm_device *dev, - struct exynos_drm_manager *mgr, - unsigned long possible_crtcs); -struct exynos_drm_manager * -exynos_drm_get_manager(struct drm_encoder *encoder); -void exynos_drm_fn_encoder(struct drm_crtc *crtc, void *data, - void (*fn)(struct drm_encoder *, void *)); -void exynos_drm_enable_vblank(struct drm_encoder *encoder, void *data); -void exynos_drm_disable_vblank(struct drm_encoder *encoder, void *data); -void exynos_drm_encoder_crtc_dpms(struct drm_encoder *encoder, void *data); -void exynos_drm_encoder_crtc_pipe(struct drm_encoder *encoder, void *data); -void exynos_drm_encoder_plane_mode_set(struct drm_encoder *encoder, void *data); -void exynos_drm_encoder_plane_commit(struct drm_encoder *encoder, void *data); -void exynos_drm_encoder_plane_enable(struct drm_encoder *encoder, void *data); -void exynos_drm_encoder_plane_disable(struct drm_encoder *encoder, void *data); -void exynos_drm_encoder_complete_scanout(struct drm_framebuffer *fb); + struct exynos_drm_display *mgr, + unsigned long possible_crtcs); +struct exynos_drm_display *exynos_drm_get_display(struct drm_encoder *encoder); #endif diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_fb.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_fb.c index ea39e0e..c7c08d0 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_fb.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_fb.c @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ #include "exynos_drm_fb.h" #include "exynos_drm_gem.h" #include "exynos_drm_iommu.h" -#include "exynos_drm_encoder.h" +#include "exynos_drm_crtc.h" #define to_exynos_fb(x) container_of(x, struct exynos_drm_fb, fb) @@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ static void exynos_drm_fb_destroy(struct drm_framebuffer *fb) unsigned int i; /* make sure that overlay data are updated before relesing fb. */ - exynos_drm_encoder_complete_scanout(fb); + exynos_drm_crtc_complete_scanout(fb); drm_framebuffer_cleanup(fb); diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_fimd.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_fimd.c index b980b05..d2b8ccb 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_fimd.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_fimd.c @@ -105,7 +105,6 @@ struct fimd_win_data { }; struct fimd_context { - struct exynos_drm_subdrv subdrv; struct device *dev; struct drm_device *drm_dev; int irq; @@ -120,6 +119,7 @@ struct fimd_context { u32 vidcon0; u32 vidcon1; bool suspended; + int pipe; struct mutex lock; wait_queue_head_t wait_vsync_queue; atomic_t wait_vsync_event; @@ -147,22 +147,22 @@ static inline struct fimd_driver_data *drm_fimd_get_driver_data( return (struct fimd_driver_data *)of_id->data; } -static bool fimd_display_is_connected(struct device *dev) +static bool fimd_display_is_connected(struct exynos_drm_display *display) { /* TODO. */ return true; } -static void *fimd_get_panel(struct device *dev) +static void *fimd_get_panel(struct exynos_drm_display *display) { - struct exynos_drm_manager *mgr = get_fimd_manager(dev); - struct fimd_context *ctx = mgr->ctx; + struct fimd_context *ctx = display->ctx; return &ctx->panel; } -static int fimd_check_mode(struct device *dev, struct drm_display_mode *mode) +static int fimd_check_mode(struct exynos_drm_display *display, + struct drm_display_mode *mode) { /* TODO. */ @@ -170,12 +170,16 @@ static int fimd_check_mode(struct device *dev, struct drm_display_mode *mode) } static struct exynos_drm_display_ops fimd_display_ops = { - .type = EXYNOS_DISPLAY_TYPE_LCD, .is_connected = fimd_display_is_connected, .get_panel = fimd_get_panel, .check_mode = fimd_check_mode, }; +static struct exynos_drm_display fimd_display = { + .type = EXYNOS_DISPLAY_TYPE_LCD, + .ops = &fimd_display_ops, +}; + static void fimd_win_mode_set(struct exynos_drm_manager *mgr, struct exynos_drm_overlay *overlay) { @@ -484,15 +488,45 @@ static void fimd_win_disable(struct exynos_drm_manager *mgr, int zpos) } static int fimd_mgr_initialize(struct exynos_drm_manager *mgr, - struct drm_device *drm_dev) + struct drm_device *drm_dev, int pipe) { struct fimd_context *ctx = mgr->ctx; ctx->drm_dev = drm_dev; + ctx->pipe = pipe; + + /* + * enable drm irq mode. + * - with irq_enabled = 1, we can use the vblank feature. + * + * P.S. note that we wouldn't use drm irq handler but + * just specific driver own one instead because + * drm framework supports only one irq handler. + */ + ctx->drm_dev->irq_enabled = 1; + + /* + * with vblank_disable_allowed = 1, vblank interrupt will be disabled + * by drm timer once a current process gives up ownership of + * vblank event.(after drm_vblank_put function is called) + */ + drm_dev->vblank_disable_allowed = 1; + + /* attach this sub driver to iommu mapping if supported. */ + if (is_drm_iommu_supported(ctx->drm_dev)) + drm_iommu_attach_device(ctx->drm_dev, ctx->dev); return 0; } +static void fimd_mgr_remove(struct exynos_drm_manager *mgr) +{ + struct fimd_context *ctx = mgr->ctx; + + if (is_drm_iommu_supported(ctx->drm_dev)) + drm_iommu_detach_device(ctx->drm_dev, ctx->dev); +} + static void fimd_dpms(struct exynos_drm_manager *mgr, int mode) { struct fimd_context *ctx = mgr->ctx; @@ -526,23 +560,6 @@ static void fimd_dpms(struct exynos_drm_manager *mgr, int mode) mutex_unlock(&ctx->lock); } -static void fimd_apply(struct exynos_drm_manager *mgr) -{ - struct fimd_context *ctx = mgr->ctx; - struct exynos_drm_manager_ops *mgr_ops = mgr->ops; - struct fimd_win_data *win_data; - int i; - - for (i = 0; i < WINDOWS_NR; i++) { - win_data = &ctx->win_data[i]; - if (win_data->enabled && (mgr_ops && mgr_ops->win_commit)) - mgr_ops->win_commit(mgr, i); - } - - if (mgr_ops && mgr_ops->commit) - mgr_ops->commit(mgr); -} - static void fimd_commit(struct exynos_drm_manager *mgr) { struct fimd_context *ctx = mgr->ctx; @@ -599,6 +616,21 @@ static void fimd_commit(struct exynos_drm_manager *mgr) writel(val, ctx->regs + VIDCON0); } +static void fimd_apply(struct exynos_drm_manager *mgr) +{ + struct fimd_context *ctx = mgr->ctx; + struct fimd_win_data *win_data; + int i; + + for (i = 0; i < WINDOWS_NR; i++) { + win_data = &ctx->win_data[i]; + if (win_data->enabled) + fimd_win_commit(mgr, i); + } + + fimd_commit(mgr); +} + static int fimd_enable_vblank(struct exynos_drm_manager *mgr) { struct fimd_context *ctx = mgr->ctx; @@ -663,6 +695,7 @@ static void fimd_wait_for_vblank(struct exynos_drm_manager *mgr) static struct exynos_drm_manager_ops fimd_manager_ops = { .initialize = fimd_mgr_initialize, + .remove = fimd_mgr_remove, .dpms = fimd_dpms, .commit = fimd_commit, .enable_vblank = fimd_enable_vblank, @@ -674,16 +707,13 @@ static struct exynos_drm_manager_ops fimd_manager_ops = { }; static struct exynos_drm_manager fimd_manager = { - .pipe = -1, - .ops = &fimd_manager_ops, - .display_ops = &fimd_display_ops, + .type = EXYNOS_DISPLAY_TYPE_LCD, + .ops = &fimd_manager_ops, }; static irqreturn_t fimd_irq_handler(int irq, void *dev_id) { struct fimd_context *ctx = (struct fimd_context *)dev_id; - struct exynos_drm_subdrv *subdrv = &ctx->subdrv; - struct exynos_drm_manager *manager = subdrv->manager; u32 val; val = readl(ctx->regs + VIDINTCON1); @@ -693,11 +723,11 @@ static irqreturn_t fimd_irq_handler(int irq, void *dev_id) writel(VIDINTCON1_INT_FRAME, ctx->regs + VIDINTCON1); /* check the crtc is detached already from encoder */ - if (manager->pipe < 0 || !ctx->drm_dev) + if (ctx->pipe < 0 || !ctx->drm_dev) goto out; - drm_handle_vblank(ctx->drm_dev, manager->pipe); - exynos_drm_crtc_finish_pageflip(ctx->drm_dev, manager->pipe); + drm_handle_vblank(ctx->drm_dev, ctx->pipe); + exynos_drm_crtc_finish_pageflip(ctx->drm_dev, ctx->pipe); /* set wait vsync event to zero and wake up queue. */ if (atomic_read(&ctx->wait_vsync_event)) { @@ -708,39 +738,6 @@ out: return IRQ_HANDLED; } -static int fimd_subdrv_probe(struct drm_device *drm_dev, struct device *dev) -{ - /* - * enable drm irq mode. - * - with irq_enabled = 1, we can use the vblank feature. - * - * P.S. note that we wouldn't use drm irq handler but - * just specific driver own one instead because - * drm framework supports only one irq handler. - */ - drm_dev->irq_enabled = 1; - - /* - * with vblank_disable_allowed = 1, vblank interrupt will be disabled - * by drm timer once a current process gives up ownership of - * vblank event.(after drm_vblank_put function is called) - */ - drm_dev->vblank_disable_allowed = 1; - - /* attach this sub driver to iommu mapping if supported. */ - if (is_drm_iommu_supported(drm_dev)) - drm_iommu_attach_device(drm_dev, dev); - - return 0; -} - -static void fimd_subdrv_remove(struct drm_device *drm_dev, struct device *dev) -{ - /* detach this sub driver from iommu mapping if supported. */ - if (is_drm_iommu_supported(drm_dev)) - drm_iommu_detach_device(drm_dev, dev); -} - static int fimd_configure_clocks(struct fimd_context *ctx, struct device *dev) { struct videomode *vm = &ctx->panel.vm; @@ -826,9 +823,8 @@ static int fimd_clock(struct fimd_context *ctx, bool enable) return 0; } -static void fimd_window_suspend(struct device *dev) +static void fimd_window_suspend(struct exynos_drm_manager *mgr) { - struct exynos_drm_manager *mgr = get_fimd_manager(dev); struct fimd_context *ctx = mgr->ctx; struct fimd_win_data *win_data; int i; @@ -841,9 +837,8 @@ static void fimd_window_suspend(struct device *dev) fimd_wait_for_vblank(mgr); } -static void fimd_window_resume(struct device *dev) +static void fimd_window_resume(struct exynos_drm_manager *mgr) { - struct exynos_drm_manager *mgr = get_fimd_manager(dev); struct fimd_context *ctx = mgr->ctx; struct fimd_win_data *win_data; int i; @@ -858,7 +853,6 @@ static void fimd_window_resume(struct device *dev) static int fimd_activate(struct exynos_drm_manager *mgr, bool enable) { struct fimd_context *ctx = mgr->ctx; - struct device *dev = ctx->subdrv.dev; if (enable) { int ret; @@ -873,11 +867,11 @@ static int fimd_activate(struct exynos_drm_manager *mgr, bool enable) if (test_and_clear_bit(0, &ctx->irq_flags)) fimd_enable_vblank(mgr); - fimd_window_resume(dev); + fimd_window_resume(mgr); fimd_apply(mgr); } else { - fimd_window_suspend(dev); + fimd_window_suspend(mgr); fimd_clock(ctx, false); ctx->suspended = true; @@ -914,7 +908,6 @@ static int fimd_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) { struct device *dev = &pdev->dev; struct fimd_context *ctx; - struct exynos_drm_subdrv *subdrv; struct resource *res; int win; int ret = -EINVAL; @@ -961,27 +954,22 @@ static int fimd_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) DRM_INIT_WAITQUEUE(&ctx->wait_vsync_queue); atomic_set(&ctx->wait_vsync_event, 0); - fimd_manager.ctx = ctx; - - subdrv = &ctx->subdrv; - - subdrv->dev = dev; - subdrv->manager = &fimd_manager; - subdrv->probe = fimd_subdrv_probe; - subdrv->remove = fimd_subdrv_remove; - mutex_init(&ctx->lock); platform_set_drvdata(pdev, &fimd_manager); + fimd_manager.ctx = ctx; + exynos_drm_manager_register(&fimd_manager); + + fimd_display.ctx = ctx; + exynos_drm_display_register(&fimd_display); + pm_runtime_enable(dev); pm_runtime_get_sync(dev); for (win = 0; win < WINDOWS_NR; win++) fimd_clear_win(ctx, win); - exynos_drm_subdrv_register(subdrv); - return 0; } @@ -991,7 +979,8 @@ static int fimd_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) struct exynos_drm_manager *mgr = platform_get_drvdata(pdev); struct fimd_context *ctx = mgr->ctx; - exynos_drm_subdrv_unregister(&ctx->subdrv); + exynos_drm_display_unregister(&fimd_display); + exynos_drm_manager_unregister(&fimd_manager); if (ctx->suspended) goto out; diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_hdmi.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_hdmi.c deleted file mode 100644 index f9a9324..0000000 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_hdmi.c +++ /dev/null @@ -1,449 +0,0 @@ -/* - * Copyright (C) 2011 Samsung Electronics Co.Ltd - * Authors: - * Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> - * Seung-Woo Kim <sw0312.kim@samsung.com> - * - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it - * under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the - * Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your - * option) any later version. - * - */ - -#include <drm/drmP.h> - -#include <linux/kernel.h> -#include <linux/wait.h> -#include <linux/platform_device.h> -#include <linux/pm_runtime.h> - -#include <drm/exynos_drm.h> - -#include "exynos_drm_drv.h" -#include "exynos_drm_hdmi.h" - -#define to_context(dev) platform_get_drvdata(to_platform_device(dev)) -#define to_subdrv(dev) to_context(dev) -#define get_ctx_from_subdrv(subdrv) container_of(subdrv,\ - struct drm_hdmi_context, subdrv); - -/* platform device pointer for common drm hdmi device. */ -static struct platform_device *exynos_drm_hdmi_pdev; - -/* Common hdmi subdrv needs to access the hdmi and mixer though context. -* These should be initialied by the repective drivers */ -static struct exynos_drm_hdmi_context *hdmi_ctx; -static struct exynos_drm_hdmi_context *mixer_ctx; - -/* these callback points shoud be set by specific drivers. */ -static struct exynos_hdmi_ops *hdmi_ops; -static struct exynos_mixer_ops *mixer_ops; - -struct drm_hdmi_context { - struct exynos_drm_subdrv subdrv; - struct exynos_drm_hdmi_context *hdmi_ctx; - struct exynos_drm_hdmi_context *mixer_ctx; - - bool enabled[MIXER_WIN_NR]; -}; - -int exynos_platform_device_hdmi_register(void) -{ - struct platform_device *pdev; - - if (exynos_drm_hdmi_pdev) - return -EEXIST; - - pdev = platform_device_register_simple( - "exynos-drm-hdmi", -1, NULL, 0); - if (IS_ERR(pdev)) - return PTR_ERR(pdev); - - exynos_drm_hdmi_pdev = pdev; - - return 0; -} - -void exynos_platform_device_hdmi_unregister(void) -{ - if (exynos_drm_hdmi_pdev) { - platform_device_unregister(exynos_drm_hdmi_pdev); - exynos_drm_hdmi_pdev = NULL; - } -} - -void exynos_hdmi_drv_attach(struct exynos_drm_hdmi_context *ctx) -{ - if (ctx) - hdmi_ctx = ctx; -} - -void exynos_mixer_drv_attach(struct exynos_drm_hdmi_context *ctx) -{ - if (ctx) - mixer_ctx = ctx; -} - -void exynos_hdmi_ops_register(struct exynos_hdmi_ops *ops) -{ - if (ops) - hdmi_ops = ops; -} - -void exynos_mixer_ops_register(struct exynos_mixer_ops *ops) -{ - if (ops) - mixer_ops = ops; -} - -static int drm_hdmi_display_initialize(struct device *dev, - struct drm_device *drm_dev) -{ - struct drm_hdmi_context *ctx = to_context(dev); - - if (hdmi_ops && hdmi_ops->initialize) - return hdmi_ops->initialize(ctx->hdmi_ctx->ctx, drm_dev); - - return 0; -} - - -static bool drm_hdmi_is_connected(struct device *dev) -{ - struct drm_hdmi_context *ctx = to_context(dev); - - if (hdmi_ops && hdmi_ops->is_connected) - return hdmi_ops->is_connected(ctx->hdmi_ctx->ctx); - - return false; -} - -static struct edid *drm_hdmi_get_edid(struct device *dev, - struct drm_connector *connector) -{ - struct drm_hdmi_context *ctx = to_context(dev); - - if (hdmi_ops && hdmi_ops->get_edid) - return hdmi_ops->get_edid(ctx->hdmi_ctx->ctx, connector); - - return NULL; -} -static int drm_hdmi_check_mode_ctx(struct drm_hdmi_context *ctx, - struct drm_display_mode *mode) -{ - int ret = 0; - - /* - * Both, mixer and hdmi should be able to handle the requested mode. - * If any of the two fails, return mode as BAD. - */ - - if (mixer_ops && mixer_ops->check_mode) - ret = mixer_ops->check_mode(ctx->mixer_ctx->ctx, mode); - - if (ret) - return ret; - - if (hdmi_ops && hdmi_ops->check_mode) - return hdmi_ops->check_mode(ctx->hdmi_ctx->ctx, mode); - - return 0; -} - -static int drm_hdmi_check_mode(struct device *dev, - struct drm_display_mode *mode) -{ - struct drm_hdmi_context *ctx = to_context(dev); - - return drm_hdmi_check_mode_ctx(ctx, mode); -} - -static int drm_hdmi_display_dpms(struct device *dev, int mode) -{ - struct drm_hdmi_context *ctx = to_context(dev); - - if (hdmi_ops && hdmi_ops->dpms) - hdmi_ops->dpms(ctx->hdmi_ctx->ctx, mode); - - return 0; -} - -static struct exynos_drm_display_ops drm_hdmi_display_ops = { - .type = EXYNOS_DISPLAY_TYPE_HDMI, - .initialize = drm_hdmi_display_initialize, - .is_connected = drm_hdmi_is_connected, - .get_edid = drm_hdmi_get_edid, - .check_mode = drm_hdmi_check_mode, - .dpms = drm_hdmi_display_dpms, -}; - -static int drm_hdmi_enable_vblank(struct exynos_drm_manager *mgr) -{ - struct drm_hdmi_context *ctx = mgr->ctx; - struct exynos_drm_subdrv *subdrv = &ctx->subdrv; - struct exynos_drm_manager *manager = subdrv->manager; - - if (mixer_ops && mixer_ops->enable_vblank) - return mixer_ops->enable_vblank(ctx->mixer_ctx->ctx, - manager->pipe); - - return 0; -} - -static void drm_hdmi_disable_vblank(struct exynos_drm_manager *mgr) -{ - struct drm_hdmi_context *ctx = mgr->ctx; - - if (mixer_ops && mixer_ops->disable_vblank) - return mixer_ops->disable_vblank(ctx->mixer_ctx->ctx); -} - -static void drm_hdmi_wait_for_vblank(struct exynos_drm_manager *mgr) -{ - struct drm_hdmi_context *ctx = mgr->ctx; - - if (mixer_ops && mixer_ops->wait_for_vblank) - mixer_ops->wait_for_vblank(ctx->mixer_ctx->ctx); -} - -static void drm_hdmi_mode_fixup(struct exynos_drm_manager *mgr, - struct drm_connector *connector, - const struct drm_display_mode *mode, - struct drm_display_mode *adjusted_mode) -{ - struct drm_hdmi_context *ctx = mgr->ctx; - struct drm_display_mode *m; - int mode_ok; - - drm_mode_set_crtcinfo(adjusted_mode, 0); - - mode_ok = drm_hdmi_check_mode_ctx(ctx, adjusted_mode); - - /* just return if user desired mode exists. */ - if (mode_ok == 0) - return; - - /* - * otherwise, find the most suitable mode among modes and change it - * to adjusted_mode. - */ - list_for_each_entry(m, &connector->modes, head) { - mode_ok = drm_hdmi_check_mode_ctx(ctx, m); - - if (mode_ok == 0) { - struct drm_mode_object base; - struct list_head head; - - DRM_INFO("desired mode doesn't exist so\n"); - DRM_INFO("use the most suitable mode among modes.\n"); - - DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Adjusted Mode: [%d]x[%d] [%d]Hz\n", - m->hdisplay, m->vdisplay, m->vrefresh); - - /* preserve display mode header while copying. */ - head = adjusted_mode->head; - base = adjusted_mode->base; - memcpy(adjusted_mode, m, sizeof(*m)); - adjusted_mode->head = head; - adjusted_mode->base = base; - break; - } - } -} - -static void drm_hdmi_mode_set(struct exynos_drm_manager *mgr, void *mode) -{ - struct drm_hdmi_context *ctx = mgr->ctx; - - if (hdmi_ops && hdmi_ops->mode_set) - hdmi_ops->mode_set(ctx->hdmi_ctx->ctx, mode); -} - -static void drm_hdmi_get_max_resol(struct exynos_drm_manager *mgr, - unsigned int *width, unsigned int *height) -{ - struct drm_hdmi_context *ctx = mgr->ctx; - - if (hdmi_ops && hdmi_ops->get_max_resol) - hdmi_ops->get_max_resol(ctx->hdmi_ctx->ctx, width, height); -} - -static void drm_hdmi_commit(struct exynos_drm_manager *mgr) -{ - struct drm_hdmi_context *ctx = mgr->ctx; - - if (hdmi_ops && hdmi_ops->commit) - hdmi_ops->commit(ctx->hdmi_ctx->ctx); -} - -static int drm_hdmi_mgr_initialize(struct exynos_drm_manager *mgr, struct drm_device *drm_dev) -{ - struct drm_hdmi_context *ctx = mgr->ctx; - int ret = 0; - - if (mixer_ops && mixer_ops->initialize) - ret = mixer_ops->initialize(ctx->mixer_ctx->ctx, drm_dev); - - if (mixer_ops->iommu_on) - mixer_ops->iommu_on(ctx->mixer_ctx->ctx, true); - - return ret; -} - -static void drm_hdmi_dpms(struct exynos_drm_manager *mgr, int mode) -{ - struct drm_hdmi_context *ctx = mgr->ctx; - - if (mixer_ops && mixer_ops->dpms) - mixer_ops->dpms(ctx->mixer_ctx->ctx, mode); - - if (hdmi_ops && hdmi_ops->dpms) - hdmi_ops->dpms(ctx->hdmi_ctx->ctx, mode); -} - -static void drm_mixer_win_mode_set(struct exynos_drm_manager *mgr, - struct exynos_drm_overlay *overlay) -{ - struct drm_hdmi_context *ctx = mgr->ctx; - - if (mixer_ops && mixer_ops->win_mode_set) - mixer_ops->win_mode_set(ctx->mixer_ctx->ctx, overlay); -} - -static void drm_mixer_win_commit(struct exynos_drm_manager *mgr, int zpos) -{ - struct drm_hdmi_context *ctx = mgr->ctx; - int win = (zpos == DEFAULT_ZPOS) ? MIXER_DEFAULT_WIN : zpos; - - if (win < 0 || win >= MIXER_WIN_NR) { - DRM_ERROR("mixer window[%d] is wrong\n", win); - return; - } - - if (mixer_ops && mixer_ops->win_commit) - mixer_ops->win_commit(ctx->mixer_ctx->ctx, win); - - ctx->enabled[win] = true; -} - -static void drm_mixer_win_disable(struct exynos_drm_manager *mgr, int zpos) -{ - struct drm_hdmi_context *ctx = mgr->ctx; - int win = (zpos == DEFAULT_ZPOS) ? MIXER_DEFAULT_WIN : zpos; - - if (win < 0 || win >= MIXER_WIN_NR) { - DRM_ERROR("mixer window[%d] is wrong\n", win); - return; - } - - if (mixer_ops && mixer_ops->win_disable) - mixer_ops->win_disable(ctx->mixer_ctx->ctx, win); - - ctx->enabled[win] = false; -} - -static struct exynos_drm_manager_ops drm_hdmi_manager_ops = { - .initialize = drm_hdmi_mgr_initialize, - .dpms = drm_hdmi_dpms, - .enable_vblank = drm_hdmi_enable_vblank, - .disable_vblank = drm_hdmi_disable_vblank, - .wait_for_vblank = drm_hdmi_wait_for_vblank, - .mode_fixup = drm_hdmi_mode_fixup, - .mode_set = drm_hdmi_mode_set, - .get_max_resol = drm_hdmi_get_max_resol, - .commit = drm_hdmi_commit, - .win_mode_set = drm_mixer_win_mode_set, - .win_commit = drm_mixer_win_commit, - .win_disable = drm_mixer_win_disable, -}; - -static struct exynos_drm_manager hdmi_manager = { - .pipe = -1, - .ops = &drm_hdmi_manager_ops, - .display_ops = &drm_hdmi_display_ops, -}; - -static int hdmi_subdrv_probe(struct drm_device *drm_dev, - struct device *dev) -{ - struct exynos_drm_subdrv *subdrv = to_subdrv(dev); - struct drm_hdmi_context *ctx; - - if (!hdmi_ctx) { - DRM_ERROR("hdmi context not initialized.\n"); - return -EFAULT; - } - - if (!mixer_ctx) { - DRM_ERROR("mixer context not initialized.\n"); - return -EFAULT; - } - - ctx = get_ctx_from_subdrv(subdrv); - - if (!ctx) { - DRM_ERROR("no drm hdmi context.\n"); - return -EFAULT; - } - - ctx->hdmi_ctx = hdmi_ctx; - ctx->mixer_ctx = mixer_ctx; - - return 0; -} - -static void hdmi_subdrv_remove(struct drm_device *drm_dev, struct device *dev) -{ - struct drm_hdmi_context *ctx; - struct exynos_drm_subdrv *subdrv = to_subdrv(dev); - - ctx = get_ctx_from_subdrv(subdrv); - - if (mixer_ops->iommu_on) - mixer_ops->iommu_on(ctx->mixer_ctx->ctx, false); -} - -static int exynos_drm_hdmi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) -{ - struct device *dev = &pdev->dev; - struct exynos_drm_subdrv *subdrv; - struct drm_hdmi_context *ctx; - - ctx = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*ctx), GFP_KERNEL); - if (!ctx) - return -ENOMEM; - - hdmi_manager.ctx = ctx; - - subdrv = &ctx->subdrv; - - subdrv->dev = dev; - subdrv->manager = &hdmi_manager; - subdrv->probe = hdmi_subdrv_probe; - subdrv->remove = hdmi_subdrv_remove; - - platform_set_drvdata(pdev, subdrv); - - exynos_drm_subdrv_register(subdrv); - - return 0; -} - -static int exynos_drm_hdmi_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) -{ - struct drm_hdmi_context *ctx = platform_get_drvdata(pdev); - - exynos_drm_subdrv_unregister(&ctx->subdrv); - - return 0; -} - -struct platform_driver exynos_drm_common_hdmi_driver = { - .probe = exynos_drm_hdmi_probe, - .remove = exynos_drm_hdmi_remove, - .driver = { - .name = "exynos-drm-hdmi", - .owner = THIS_MODULE, - }, -}; diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_hdmi.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_hdmi.h index 923239b..37059ea 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_hdmi.h +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_hdmi.h @@ -19,10 +19,12 @@ * exynos hdmi common context structure. * * @drm_dev: pointer to drm_device. + * @pipe: pipe for mixer * @ctx: pointer to the context of specific device driver. * this context should be hdmi_context or mixer_context. */ struct exynos_drm_hdmi_context { + int pipe; void *ctx; }; diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_plane.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_plane.c index cff3aed..e0db2b3 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_plane.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_plane.c @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ #include <drm/exynos_drm.h> #include "exynos_drm_drv.h" -#include "exynos_drm_encoder.h" +#include "exynos_drm_crtc.h" #include "exynos_drm_fb.h" #include "exynos_drm_gem.h" #include "exynos_drm_plane.h" @@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ int exynos_plane_mode_set(struct drm_plane *plane, struct drm_crtc *crtc, overlay->crtc_x, overlay->crtc_y, overlay->crtc_width, overlay->crtc_height); - exynos_drm_fn_encoder(crtc, overlay, exynos_drm_encoder_plane_mode_set); + exynos_drm_crtc_plane_mode_set(crtc, overlay); return 0; } @@ -149,8 +149,7 @@ void exynos_plane_commit(struct drm_plane *plane) struct exynos_plane *exynos_plane = to_exynos_plane(plane); struct exynos_drm_overlay *overlay = &exynos_plane->overlay; - exynos_drm_fn_encoder(plane->crtc, &overlay->zpos, - exynos_drm_encoder_plane_commit); + exynos_drm_crtc_plane_commit(plane->crtc, overlay->zpos); } void exynos_plane_dpms(struct drm_plane *plane, int mode) @@ -162,17 +161,13 @@ void exynos_plane_dpms(struct drm_plane *plane, int mode) if (exynos_plane->enabled) return; - exynos_drm_fn_encoder(plane->crtc, &overlay->zpos, - exynos_drm_encoder_plane_enable); - + exynos_drm_crtc_plane_enable(plane->crtc, overlay->zpos); exynos_plane->enabled = true; } else { if (!exynos_plane->enabled) return; - exynos_drm_fn_encoder(plane->crtc, &overlay->zpos, - exynos_drm_encoder_plane_disable); - + exynos_drm_crtc_plane_disable(plane->crtc, overlay->zpos); exynos_plane->enabled = false; } }
This patch splits display and manager from subdrv. The result is that crtc functions can directly call into manager callbacks and encoder functions can directly call into display callbacks. This will allow us to remove the exynos_drm_hdmi shim and support mixer/hdmi & fimd/dp with common code. Signed-off-by: Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> --- Changes in v2: - Pass display into display_ops instead of context drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_connector.c | 50 ++- drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_core.c | 181 ++++++++--- drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_crtc.c | 115 +++++-- drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_crtc.h | 20 +- drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_drv.c | 29 +- drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_drv.h | 106 +++--- drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_encoder.c | 258 ++------------- drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_encoder.h | 18 +- drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_fb.c | 4 +- drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_fimd.c | 161 +++++---- drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_hdmi.c | 449 -------------------------- drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_hdmi.h | 2 + drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_plane.c | 15 +- 13 files changed, 466 insertions(+), 942 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_hdmi.c