All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
Cc: "Maarten Lankhorst" <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
	"Jani Nikula" <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
	"Joonas Lahtinen" <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>,
	"Rodrigo Vivi" <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
	"Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	"Len Brown" <lenb@kernel.org>, "Lee Jones" <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
	linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
	intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] drm/i915 / LPSS / mfd: Select correct PWM controller to use based on VBT
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 18:32:16 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191119163216.GI32742@smile.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191119151818.67531-1-hdegoede@redhat.com>

On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 04:18:15PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> This series needs to be merged through a single tree, to keep things
> bisectable. I have even considered just squashing all 3 patches into 1,
> but having separate commits seems better, but that does lead to an
> intermediate state where the backlight sysfs interface will be broken
> (and fixed 2 commits later). See below for some background info.
> 
> The changes to drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c and drivers/mfd/intel_soc_pmic_core.c
> are quite small and should not lead to any conflicts, so I believe that
> it would be best to merge this entire series through the drm-intel tree.
> 
> Lee, may I have your Acked-by for merging the mfd change through the
> drm-intel tree?
> 
> Rafael, may I have your Acked-by for merging the acpi_lpss change through the
> drm-intel tree?
> 

Entire series (or a single patch) makes sense to me.
Thanks for fixing this old hardware!

FWIW,
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>

> Regards,
> 
> Hans
> 
> p.s.
> 
> The promised background info:
> 
> We have this long standing issue where instead of looking in the i915
> VBT (Video BIOS Table) to see if we should use the PWM block of the SoC
> or of the PMIC to control the backlight of a DSI panel, we rely on
> drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c and/or drivers/mfd/intel_soc_pmic_core.c
> registering a pwm with the generic name of "pwm_backlight" and then the
> i915 panel code does a pwm_get(dev, "pwm_backlight").
> 
> We have some heuristics in drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c to not register the
> lookup if a Crystal Cove PMIC is presend and the mfd/intel_soc_pmic_core.c
> code simply assumes that since there is a PMIC the PMIC PWM block will
> be used. Basically we are winging it.
> 
> Recently I've learned about 2 different BYT devices:
> Point of View MOBII TAB-P800W
> Acer Switch 10 SW5-012
> 
> Which use a Crystal Cove PMIC, yet the LCD is connected to the SoC/LPSS
> PWM controller (and the VBT correctly indicates this), so here our old
> heuristics fail.
> 
> This series renams the PWM lookups registered by the LPSS /
> intel_soc_pmic_core.c code from "pwm_backlight" to "pwm_soc_backlight" resp.
> "pwm_pmic_backlight" and in the LPSS case also dropping the heuristics when
> to register the lookup. This combined with teaching the i915 panel to call
> pwm_get for the right lookup-name depending on the VBT bits resolves this.
> 

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko



WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
Cc: intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
	Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] drm/i915 / LPSS / mfd: Select correct PWM controller to use based on VBT
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 18:32:16 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191119163216.GI32742@smile.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191119151818.67531-1-hdegoede@redhat.com>

On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 04:18:15PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> This series needs to be merged through a single tree, to keep things
> bisectable. I have even considered just squashing all 3 patches into 1,
> but having separate commits seems better, but that does lead to an
> intermediate state where the backlight sysfs interface will be broken
> (and fixed 2 commits later). See below for some background info.
> 
> The changes to drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c and drivers/mfd/intel_soc_pmic_core.c
> are quite small and should not lead to any conflicts, so I believe that
> it would be best to merge this entire series through the drm-intel tree.
> 
> Lee, may I have your Acked-by for merging the mfd change through the
> drm-intel tree?
> 
> Rafael, may I have your Acked-by for merging the acpi_lpss change through the
> drm-intel tree?
> 

Entire series (or a single patch) makes sense to me.
Thanks for fixing this old hardware!

FWIW,
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>

> Regards,
> 
> Hans
> 
> p.s.
> 
> The promised background info:
> 
> We have this long standing issue where instead of looking in the i915
> VBT (Video BIOS Table) to see if we should use the PWM block of the SoC
> or of the PMIC to control the backlight of a DSI panel, we rely on
> drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c and/or drivers/mfd/intel_soc_pmic_core.c
> registering a pwm with the generic name of "pwm_backlight" and then the
> i915 panel code does a pwm_get(dev, "pwm_backlight").
> 
> We have some heuristics in drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c to not register the
> lookup if a Crystal Cove PMIC is presend and the mfd/intel_soc_pmic_core.c
> code simply assumes that since there is a PMIC the PMIC PWM block will
> be used. Basically we are winging it.
> 
> Recently I've learned about 2 different BYT devices:
> Point of View MOBII TAB-P800W
> Acer Switch 10 SW5-012
> 
> Which use a Crystal Cove PMIC, yet the LCD is connected to the SoC/LPSS
> PWM controller (and the VBT correctly indicates this), so here our old
> heuristics fail.
> 
> This series renams the PWM lookups registered by the LPSS /
> intel_soc_pmic_core.c code from "pwm_backlight" to "pwm_soc_backlight" resp.
> "pwm_pmic_backlight" and in the LPSS case also dropping the heuristics when
> to register the lookup. This combined with teaching the i915 panel to call
> pwm_get for the right lookup-name depending on the VBT bits resolves this.
> 

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko


_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
Cc: intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] drm/i915 / LPSS / mfd: Select correct PWM controller to use based on VBT
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 18:32:16 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191119163216.GI32742@smile.fi.intel.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20191119163216.NNschtsAPRCwZbdGC00wjbAfgbUjF8x6nVLrjiffbOs@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191119151818.67531-1-hdegoede@redhat.com>

On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 04:18:15PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> This series needs to be merged through a single tree, to keep things
> bisectable. I have even considered just squashing all 3 patches into 1,
> but having separate commits seems better, but that does lead to an
> intermediate state where the backlight sysfs interface will be broken
> (and fixed 2 commits later). See below for some background info.
> 
> The changes to drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c and drivers/mfd/intel_soc_pmic_core.c
> are quite small and should not lead to any conflicts, so I believe that
> it would be best to merge this entire series through the drm-intel tree.
> 
> Lee, may I have your Acked-by for merging the mfd change through the
> drm-intel tree?
> 
> Rafael, may I have your Acked-by for merging the acpi_lpss change through the
> drm-intel tree?
> 

Entire series (or a single patch) makes sense to me.
Thanks for fixing this old hardware!

FWIW,
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>

> Regards,
> 
> Hans
> 
> p.s.
> 
> The promised background info:
> 
> We have this long standing issue where instead of looking in the i915
> VBT (Video BIOS Table) to see if we should use the PWM block of the SoC
> or of the PMIC to control the backlight of a DSI panel, we rely on
> drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c and/or drivers/mfd/intel_soc_pmic_core.c
> registering a pwm with the generic name of "pwm_backlight" and then the
> i915 panel code does a pwm_get(dev, "pwm_backlight").
> 
> We have some heuristics in drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c to not register the
> lookup if a Crystal Cove PMIC is presend and the mfd/intel_soc_pmic_core.c
> code simply assumes that since there is a PMIC the PMIC PWM block will
> be used. Basically we are winging it.
> 
> Recently I've learned about 2 different BYT devices:
> Point of View MOBII TAB-P800W
> Acer Switch 10 SW5-012
> 
> Which use a Crystal Cove PMIC, yet the LCD is connected to the SoC/LPSS
> PWM controller (and the VBT correctly indicates this), so here our old
> heuristics fail.
> 
> This series renams the PWM lookups registered by the LPSS /
> intel_soc_pmic_core.c code from "pwm_backlight" to "pwm_soc_backlight" resp.
> "pwm_pmic_backlight" and in the LPSS case also dropping the heuristics when
> to register the lookup. This combined with teaching the i915 panel to call
> pwm_get for the right lookup-name depending on the VBT bits resolves this.
> 

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko


_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
Cc: intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
	Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/3] drm/i915 / LPSS / mfd: Select correct PWM controller to use based on VBT
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 18:32:16 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191119163216.GI32742@smile.fi.intel.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20191119163216.1DetoOCTMinzZFLzAWAfaKuM2r_cZvHiIjmHvsmXSh8@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191119151818.67531-1-hdegoede@redhat.com>

On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 04:18:15PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> This series needs to be merged through a single tree, to keep things
> bisectable. I have even considered just squashing all 3 patches into 1,
> but having separate commits seems better, but that does lead to an
> intermediate state where the backlight sysfs interface will be broken
> (and fixed 2 commits later). See below for some background info.
> 
> The changes to drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c and drivers/mfd/intel_soc_pmic_core.c
> are quite small and should not lead to any conflicts, so I believe that
> it would be best to merge this entire series through the drm-intel tree.
> 
> Lee, may I have your Acked-by for merging the mfd change through the
> drm-intel tree?
> 
> Rafael, may I have your Acked-by for merging the acpi_lpss change through the
> drm-intel tree?
> 

Entire series (or a single patch) makes sense to me.
Thanks for fixing this old hardware!

FWIW,
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>

> Regards,
> 
> Hans
> 
> p.s.
> 
> The promised background info:
> 
> We have this long standing issue where instead of looking in the i915
> VBT (Video BIOS Table) to see if we should use the PWM block of the SoC
> or of the PMIC to control the backlight of a DSI panel, we rely on
> drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c and/or drivers/mfd/intel_soc_pmic_core.c
> registering a pwm with the generic name of "pwm_backlight" and then the
> i915 panel code does a pwm_get(dev, "pwm_backlight").
> 
> We have some heuristics in drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c to not register the
> lookup if a Crystal Cove PMIC is presend and the mfd/intel_soc_pmic_core.c
> code simply assumes that since there is a PMIC the PMIC PWM block will
> be used. Basically we are winging it.
> 
> Recently I've learned about 2 different BYT devices:
> Point of View MOBII TAB-P800W
> Acer Switch 10 SW5-012
> 
> Which use a Crystal Cove PMIC, yet the LCD is connected to the SoC/LPSS
> PWM controller (and the VBT correctly indicates this), so here our old
> heuristics fail.
> 
> This series renams the PWM lookups registered by the LPSS /
> intel_soc_pmic_core.c code from "pwm_backlight" to "pwm_soc_backlight" resp.
> "pwm_pmic_backlight" and in the LPSS case also dropping the heuristics when
> to register the lookup. This combined with teaching the i915 panel to call
> pwm_get for the right lookup-name depending on the VBT bits resolves this.
> 

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko


_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-11-19 16:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 87+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-11-19 15:18 [PATCH 0/3] drm/i915 / LPSS / mfd: Select correct PWM controller to use based on VBT Hans de Goede
2019-11-19 15:18 ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2019-11-19 15:18 ` Hans de Goede
2019-11-19 15:18 ` [PATCH 1/3] ACPI / LPSS: Rename pwm_backlight pwm-lookup to pwm_soc_backlight Hans de Goede
2019-11-19 15:18   ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2019-11-19 15:18   ` Hans de Goede
2019-11-29 11:59   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-11-29 11:59     ` [Intel-gfx] " Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-11-29 11:59     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-11-19 15:18 ` [PATCH 2/3] mfd: intel_soc_pmic: Rename pwm_backlight pwm-lookup to pwm_pmic_backlight Hans de Goede
2019-11-19 15:18   ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2019-11-19 15:18   ` Hans de Goede
2019-12-10  8:51   ` Lee Jones
2019-12-10  8:51     ` [Intel-gfx] " Lee Jones
2019-12-10  8:51     ` Lee Jones
2019-12-11 17:29     ` Hans de Goede
2019-12-11 17:29       ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2019-12-11 17:29       ` Hans de Goede
2019-12-12  8:45       ` Lee Jones
2019-12-12  8:45         ` [Intel-gfx] " Lee Jones
2019-12-12  8:45         ` Lee Jones
2019-12-12 14:34         ` Hans de Goede
2019-12-12 14:34           ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2019-12-12 14:34           ` Hans de Goede
2019-12-12 15:52           ` Lee Jones
2019-12-12 15:52             ` [Intel-gfx] " Lee Jones
2019-12-12 15:52             ` Lee Jones
2019-12-12 19:02             ` Hans de Goede
2019-12-12 19:02               ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2019-12-12 19:02               ` Hans de Goede
2019-12-13  8:27               ` Lee Jones
2019-12-13  8:27                 ` [Intel-gfx] " Lee Jones
2019-12-13  8:27                 ` Lee Jones
2019-12-13 12:40                 ` Hans de Goede
2019-12-13 12:40                   ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2019-12-13 12:40                   ` Hans de Goede
2019-12-16  9:30                   ` Lee Jones
2019-12-16  9:30                     ` [Intel-gfx] " Lee Jones
2019-12-16  9:30                     ` Lee Jones
2019-12-16 10:04                     ` Hans de Goede
2019-12-16 10:04                       ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2019-12-16 10:04                       ` Hans de Goede
2019-12-17  8:11                       ` Lee Jones
2019-12-17  8:11                         ` [Intel-gfx] " Lee Jones
2019-12-17  8:11                         ` Lee Jones
2019-12-17 13:25                         ` Jani Nikula
2019-12-17 13:25                           ` [Intel-gfx] " Jani Nikula
2019-12-17 13:25                           ` Jani Nikula
2019-12-17 13:51                           ` Lee Jones
2019-12-17 13:51                             ` [Intel-gfx] " Lee Jones
2019-12-17 13:51                             ` Lee Jones
2019-12-18  7:14                             ` Jani Nikula
2019-12-18  7:14                               ` [Intel-gfx] " Jani Nikula
2019-12-18  7:14                               ` Jani Nikula
2019-12-18  9:38                               ` Lee Jones
2019-12-18  9:38                                 ` [Intel-gfx] " Lee Jones
2019-12-18  9:38                                 ` Lee Jones
2019-11-19 15:18 ` [PATCH 3/3] drm/i915: DSI: select correct PWM controller to use based on the VBT Hans de Goede
2019-11-19 15:18   ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2019-11-19 15:18   ` Hans de Goede
2019-11-19 15:18   ` Hans de Goede
2019-11-19 15:47   ` Ville Syrjälä
2019-11-19 15:47     ` [Intel-gfx] " Ville Syrjälä
2019-11-19 15:47     ` Ville Syrjälä
2019-11-19 16:48     ` Hans de Goede
2019-11-19 16:48       ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2019-11-19 16:48       ` Hans de Goede
2019-11-19 15:43 ` [PATCH 0/3] drm/i915 / LPSS / mfd: Select correct PWM controller to use based on VBT Jani Nikula
2019-11-19 15:43   ` [Intel-gfx] " Jani Nikula
2019-11-19 15:43   ` Jani Nikula
2019-11-19 15:43   ` Jani Nikula
2019-11-19 16:32 ` Andy Shevchenko [this message]
2019-11-19 16:32   ` [Intel-gfx] " Andy Shevchenko
2019-11-19 16:32   ` Andy Shevchenko
2019-11-19 16:32   ` Andy Shevchenko
2019-11-19 19:10 ` ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for " Patchwork
2019-11-19 19:10   ` [Intel-gfx] " Patchwork
2019-11-19 19:33 ` ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure " Patchwork
2019-11-19 19:33   ` [Intel-gfx] " Patchwork
2019-11-19 21:11   ` Hans de Goede
2019-11-19 21:11     ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2019-11-20 13:00 ` ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for drm/i915 / LPSS / mfd: Select correct PWM controller to use based on VBT (rev2) Patchwork
2019-11-20 13:00   ` [Intel-gfx] " Patchwork
2019-11-20 13:48 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2019-11-20 13:48   ` [Intel-gfx] " Patchwork
2019-11-21  4:17 ` ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure " Patchwork
2019-11-21  4:17   ` [Intel-gfx] " Patchwork

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20191119163216.GI32742@smile.fi.intel.com \
    --to=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=hdegoede@redhat.com \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=jani.nikula@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=lee.jones@linaro.org \
    --cc=lenb@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
    --cc=ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.