From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D1EEC072B5 for ; Fri, 24 May 2019 10:08:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F44421773 for ; Fri, 24 May 2019 10:08:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="TTU5loUl"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=amarulasolutions.com header.i=@amarulasolutions.com header.b="TF4cfbuI" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 6F44421773 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=amarulasolutions.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:To:Subject:Message-ID:Date:From: In-Reply-To:References:MIME-Version:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=hMtG5uYvs5xcUwg13VclYNwy+6ax5o1YVquSBn6uXLk=; b=TTU5loUlz06viX nZqja/VEo+9CdQGfYHrAZSny2Pod+8BwKMVR0zlgU63VxDmu9wD1ofJ0S9Jt9I7YG70M9rBPzNqxr ADFPppILi1w4G4GkL//7dZhsWULl7LxAfCHTki8h/B0s1MBkT+lhtk4LlXDFfurkb96OsGXvFDcgR liCE4bRwRwbo64Incm4M8GnXDSZLfZyhnIPZuvn/AFIkzDLtd2GPDbXON5oLnLw/JlKf76XaHZmAo BktutaFoq9lUquYH6CYPXk3xosimIMidxm9U6Sx3VINbV8F56MOjfKeX2QMJieJ+Rirjn8WSI15is dlvk2Y0eb20T+tyB/N2w==; Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1hU77R-0002C9-8E; Fri, 24 May 2019 10:08:09 +0000 Received: from mail-io1-xd41.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::d41]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1hU77D-0001yW-9A for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 24 May 2019 10:08:01 +0000 Received: by mail-io1-xd41.google.com with SMTP id u2so7330633ioc.4 for ; Fri, 24 May 2019 03:07:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=amarulasolutions.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=TUgAZ6G4gvf+slUqb9uc+iwVC1m/3d6V2K633s4jrTg=; b=TF4cfbuIVUIf/mM/PjvuU2rmu3iPkhWBbwQvKTiRwPaDZyMqpwaKIV/Ucx5tADKIQ2 HLgZhqUi739/CEIDRH8pBVVku19c3lIdQQttRRB+KAnl+kisiJ3tkBVxtDROIujKuFJY D29ppmoHxK/mAIUKubq81TwX1b4yPzj94Jlok= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=TUgAZ6G4gvf+slUqb9uc+iwVC1m/3d6V2K633s4jrTg=; b=Bjn8QulpmOMZl0WOSq3G1IFMhRmd0UhuiBfFlfmX56/G1VHVBXwWthofiIn+fshIYi wAEM3/EbgOia3WlyBFT7ppxM2vAei/uf3CJpfQzAi0uZm9eP4AhLpe5+9xEgkKGbz/qA fTUu58f6cNQXwAZ6qmidH5evoF04b+Ov78HJ0vNe4u2GN/eQOpb8jp5Q8OmwiM31gOc1 jZ+0Sp/F3IkPNvrCI36psii7+89U54RaKtzsps1FK7pIYNActu+oOdF89Ymhuiar2cip oyWdc12nAXMENQoZ+GI2hUtPOdI0/8e36TDenDdA4TcnNi22iE9F8SHqur9rCR/PTOnl WWkw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUs7pXd7hwLM/Pj3q4kX1qLNqdNtOsHyJTYUNceYDBhfZxkds42 iyk+1oi5fTPt96dPk7HHOpz7H6v6kV43aenxDpSPPA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwmVWbvA8JWDP7ZREuSZZ6USfKRDsF78w4YD1IvT2iQBryzh6GoPGvJRrLGpAZC28dLBcMDdVE9LG5qi3N05aQ= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:994d:: with SMTP id v13mr4961505ios.77.1558692473939; Fri, 24 May 2019 03:07:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190124195900.22620-1-jagan@amarulasolutions.com> <20190124195900.22620-12-jagan@amarulasolutions.com> <20190125212433.ni2jg3wvpyjazlxf@flea> <20190129151348.mh27btttsqcmeban@flea> <20190201143102.rcvrxstc365mezvx@flea> In-Reply-To: <20190201143102.rcvrxstc365mezvx@flea> From: Jagan Teki Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 15:37:42 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 11/22] clk: sunxi-ng: a64: Add minimum rate for PLL_MIPI To: Maxime Ripard X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20190524_030755_564505_C564A315 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 35.03 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Mark Rutland , devicetree , David Airlie , Michael Turquette , linux-sunxi , linux-kernel , dri-devel , Chen-Yu Tsai , Rob Herring , Daniel Vetter , Michael Trimarchi , linux-amarula , linux-clk , linux-arm-kernel Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 8:01 PM Maxime Ripard wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 11:01:31PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 8:43 PM Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 03:06:10PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 2:54 AM Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 01:28:49AM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote: > > > > > > Minimum PLL used for MIPI is 500MHz, as per manual, but > > > > > > lowering the min rate by 300MHz can result proper working > > > > > > nkms divider with the help of desired dclock rate from > > > > > > panel driver. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jagan Teki > > > > > > Acked-by: Stephen Boyd > > > > > > > > > > Going 200MHz below the minimum doesn't seem really reasonable. What > > > > > is the issue that you are trying to fix here? > > > > > > > > > > It looks like it's picking bad dividers, but if that's the case, this > > > > > isn't the proper fix. > > > > > > > > As I stated in earlier patches, the whole idea is pick the desired > > > > dclk divider based dclk rate. So the dotclock, sun4i_dclk_round_rate > > > > is unable to get the proper dclk divider at the end, so it eventually > > > > picking up wrong divider value and fired vblank timeout. > > > > > > > > So, we come-up with optimal and working min_rate 300MHz in pll-mipi to > > > > get the desired clock something like below. > > > > [ 2.415773] [drm] No driver support for vblank timestamp query. > > > > [ 2.424116] sun4i_dclk_round_rate: min_div = 4 max_div = 127, rate = 55000000 > > > > [ 2.424172] ideal = 220000000, rounded = 0 > > > > [ 2.424176] ideal = 275000000, rounded = 0 > > > > [ 2.424194] ccu_nkm_round_rate: rate = 330000000 > > > > [ 2.424197] ideal = 330000000, rounded = 330000000 > > > > [ 2.424201] sun4i_dclk_round_rate: div = 6 rate = 55000000 > > > > [ 2.424205] sun4i_dclk_round_rate: min_div = 4 max_div = 127, rate = 55000000 > > > > [ 2.424209] ideal = 220000000, rounded = 0 > > > > [ 2.424213] ideal = 275000000, rounded = 0 > > > > [ 2.424230] ccu_nkm_round_rate: rate = 330000000 > > > > [ 2.424233] ideal = 330000000, rounded = 330000000 > > > > [ 2.424236] sun4i_dclk_round_rate: div = 6 rate = 55000000 > > > > [ 2.424253] ccu_nkm_round_rate: rate = 330000000 > > > > [ 2.424270] ccu_nkm_round_rate: rate = 330000000 > > > > [ 2.424278] sun4i_dclk_recalc_rate: val = 1, rate = 330000000 > > > > [ 2.424281] sun4i_dclk_recalc_rate: val = 1, rate = 330000000 > > > > [ 2.424306] ccu_nkm_set_rate: rate = 330000000, parent_rate = 297000000 > > > > [ 2.424309] ccu_nkm_set_rate: _nkm.n = 5 > > > > [ 2.424311] ccu_nkm_set_rate: _nkm.k = 2 > > > > [ 2.424313] ccu_nkm_set_rate: _nkm.m = 9 > > > > [ 2.424661] sun4i_dclk_set_rate div 6 > > > > [ 2.424668] sun4i_dclk_recalc_rate: val = 6, rate = 55000000 > > > > > > > > But look like this wouldn't valid for all other dclock rates, say BPI > > > > panel has 30MHz clock that would failed with this logic. > > > > > > > > On the other side Allwinner BSP calculating dclk divider based on the > > > > SoC's. for A33 [1] it is fixed dclk divider of 4 and for A64 is is > > > > calculated based on the bpp/lanes. > > > > > > It looks like the A64 has the same divider of 4: > > > https://github.com/BPI-SINOVOIP/BPI-M64-bsp/blob/master/linux-sunxi/drivers/video/sunxi/disp2/disp/de/lowlevel_sun50iw1/de_dsi.c#L12 > > > > > > I think you're confusing it with the ratio between the pixel clock and > > > the dotclock, called dsi_div: > > > https://github.com/BPI-SINOVOIP/BPI-M64-bsp/blob/master/linux-sunxi/drivers/video/sunxi/disp2/disp/de/lowlevel_sun50iw1/disp_al.c#L198 > > > > Ahh.. I thought this initially but as far as DSI clock computation is > > concern, the L12 tcon_div is local variable which is used for edge0 > > computation in burst mode and not for the dsi clock computation. Since > > the BSP is unable to get the tcon_div during edge0 computation, they > > defined it locally I think. > > > > You can see the lcd_clk_config() code [2], where we can see DSI clock > > computation using dsi_div value. > > > > Here is dump after the in Line 792 which is after computation[3] > > [ 10.800737] lcd_clk_config: dsi_div = 6, tcon_div = 4, lcd_div = 1 > > [ 10.800743] lcd_clk_config: lcd_dclk_freq = 55, dclk_rate = 55000000 > > [ 10.800749] lcd_clk_config: lcd_rate = 330000000, pll_rate = 330000000 > > > > The above dump the lcd_rate 330MHz is computed with panel clock, 55MHz > > into dsi_div 6. So this can be our actual divider values dclk_min_div, > > dclk_max_div in sun4i_dclk_round_rate (from > > drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_dotclock.c) > > I wish it was in your commit log in the first place, instead of having > to exchange multiple mails over this. > > However, I don't think that's quite true, and it might be a bug in > Allwinner's implementation (or rather something quite confusing). > > You're right that the lcd_rate and pll_rate seem to be generated from > the pixel clock, and it indeed looks like the ratio between the pixel > clock and the TCON dotclock is defined through the number of bits per > lanes. > > However, in this case, dsi_rate is actually the same than lcd_rate, > since pll_rate is going to be divided by dsi_div: > https://github.com/BPI-SINOVOIP/BPI-M64-bsp/blob/master/linux-sunxi/drivers/video/sunxi/disp2/disp/de/disp_lcd.c#L791 > > Since lcd_div is 1, it also means that in this case, dsi_rate == > dclk_rate. > > The DSI module clock however, is always set to 148.5 MHz. Indeed, if > we look at: > https://github.com/BPI-SINOVOIP/BPI-M64-bsp/blob/master/linux-sunxi/drivers/video/sunxi/disp2/disp/de/disp_lcd.c#L804 > > We can see that the rate in clk_info is used if it's different than > 0. This is filled by disp_al_lcd_get_clk_info, which, in the case of a > DSI panel, will hardcode it to 148.5 MHz: > https://github.com/BPI-SINOVOIP/BPI-M64-bsp/blob/master/linux-sunxi/drivers/video/sunxi/disp2/disp/de/lowlevel_sun50iw1/disp_al.c#L164 > > So, the DSI clock is set to this here: > https://github.com/BPI-SINOVOIP/BPI-M64-bsp/blob/master/linux-sunxi/drivers/video/sunxi/disp2/disp/de/disp_lcd.c#L805 > > The TCON *module* clock (the one in the clock controller) has been set > to lcd_rate (so the pixel clock times the number of bits per lane) here: > https://github.com/BPI-SINOVOIP/BPI-M64-bsp/blob/master/linux-sunxi/drivers/video/sunxi/disp2/disp/de/disp_lcd.c#L800 > > And the PLL has been set to the same rate here: > https://github.com/BPI-SINOVOIP/BPI-M64-bsp/blob/master/linux-sunxi/drivers/video/sunxi/disp2/disp/de/disp_lcd.c#L794 Let me explain, something more. According to bsp there are clk_info.tcon_div which I will explain below. clk_info.dsi_div which is dynamic and it depends on bpp/lanes, so it is 6 for 24bpp and 4 lanes devices. PLL rate here depends on dsi_div (not tcon_div) Code here https://github.com/BPI-SINOVOIP/BPI-M64-bsp/blob/master/linux-sunxi/drivers/video/sunxi/disp2/disp/de/disp_lcd.c#L784 is computing the actual set rate, which depends on dsi_rate. lcd_rate = dclk_rate * clk_info.dsi_div; dsi_rate = pll_rate / clk_info.dsi_div; Say if the dclk_rate 148MHz then the dsi_rate is 888MHz which set rate for above link you mentioned. Here are the evidence with some prints. https://gist.github.com/openedev/9bae2d87d2fcc06b999fe48c998b7043 https://gist.github.com/openedev/700de2e3701b2bf3ad1aa0f0fa862c9a > > Let's take a step back now: that function we were looking at, > lcd_clk_config, is called by lcd_clk_enable, which is in turn called > by disp_lcd_enable here: > https://github.com/BPI-SINOVOIP/BPI-M64-bsp/blob/master/linux-sunxi/drivers/video/sunxi/disp2/disp/de/disp_lcd.c#L1328 > > The next function being called is disp_al_lcd_cfg, and that function > will hardcode the TCON dotclock divider to 4, here: > https://github.com/BPI-SINOVOIP/BPI-M64-bsp/blob/master/linux-sunxi/drivers/video/sunxi/disp2/disp/de/lowlevel_sun50iw1/disp_al.c#L240 tcon_div from BSP point-of-view of there are two variants 00) clk_info.tcon_div which is 4 and same is set the divider position in SUN4I_TCON0_DCLK_REG (like above link refer) 01) tcon_div which is 4 and used for edge timings computation https://github.com/BPI-SINOVOIP/BPI-M64-bsp/blob/master/linux-sunxi/drivers/video/sunxi/disp2/disp/de/lowlevel_sun50iw1/de_dsi.c#L12 The real reason for 01) is again 4 is they set the divider to 4 in 00) which is technically wrong because the dividers which used during dotclock in above (dsi_div) should be used here as well. Since there is no dynamic way of doing this BSP hard-coding these values. Patches 5,6,7 on this series doing this https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/60847/ Hope this explanation helps? _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel