From: Douglas Anderson <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Sean Paul <email@example.com>, Thierry Reding <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Sandeep Panda <email@example.com> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, Laurent Pinchart <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Douglas Anderson <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Andrzej Hajda <email@example.com>, Archit Taneja <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, David Airlie <email@example.com>, Laurent Pinchart <Laurent.firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: [PATCH 4/6] drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: Remove the mystery delay Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 13:46:37 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <email@example.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Let's solve the mystery of commit bf1178c98930 ("drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: Add mystery delay to enable()"). Specifically the reason we needed that mystery delay is that we weren't paying attention to HPD. Looking at the datasheet for the same panel that was tested for the original commit, I see there's a timing "t3" that times from power on to the aux channel being operational. This time is specced as 0 - 200 ms. The datasheet says that the aux channel is operational at exactly the same time that HPD is asserted. Scoping the signals on this board showed that HPD was asserted 84 ms after power was asserted. That very closely matches the magic 70 ms delay that we had. ...and actually, in my testing the 70 ms wasn't quite enough of a delay and some percentage of the time the display didn't come up until I bumped it to 100 ms (presumably 84 ms would have worked too). To solve this, we tried to hook up the HPD signal in the bridge. ...but in doing so we found that that the bridge didn't report that HPD was asserted until ~280 ms after we powered it (!). This is explained by looking at the sn65dsi86 datasheet section "184.108.40.206 HPD (Hot Plug/Unplug Detection)". Reading there we see that the bridge isn't even intended to report HPD until 100 ms after it's asserted. ...but that would have left us at 184 ms. The extra 100 ms (presumably) comes from this part in the datasheet: > The HPD state machine operates off an internal ring oscillator. The > ring oscillator frequency will vary [ ... ]. The min/max range in > the HPD State Diagram refers to the possible times based off > variation in the ring oscillator frequency. Given that the 280 ms we'll end up delaying if we hook up HPD is _slower_ than the 200 ms we could just hardcode, for now we'll solve the problem by just hardcoding a 200 ms delay in the panel driver using the patch in this series ("drm/panel: simple: Support panels with HPD where HPD isn't connected"). If we later find a panel that needs to use this bridge where we need HPD then we'll have to come up with some new code to handle it. Given the silly debouncing in the bridge chip, though, it seems unlikely. One last note is that I tried to solve this through another way: In ti_sn_bridge_enable() I tried to use various combinations of dp_dpcd_writeb() and dp_dpcd_readb() to detect when the aux channel was up. In theory that would let me detect _exactly_ when I could continue and do link training. Unfortunately even if I did an aux transfer w/out waiting I couldn't see any errors. Possibly I could keep looping over link training until it came back with success, but that seemed a little overly hacky to me. Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <email@example.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c | 29 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c index f8a931cf3665..680566d97adc 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c @@ -458,18 +458,6 @@ static void ti_sn_bridge_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge) unsigned int val; int ret; - /* - * FIXME: - * This 70ms was found necessary by experimentation. If it's not - * present, link training fails. It seems like it can go anywhere from - * pre_enable() up to semi-auto link training initiation below. - * - * Neither the datasheet for the bridge nor the panel tested mention a - * delay of this magnitude in the timing requirements. So for now, add - * the mystery delay until someone figures out a better fix. - */ - msleep(70); - /* DSI_A lane config */ val = CHA_DSI_LANES(4 - pdata->dsi->lanes); regmap_update_bits(pdata->regmap, SN_DSI_LANES_REG, @@ -536,7 +524,22 @@ static void ti_sn_bridge_pre_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge) /* configure bridge ref_clk */ ti_sn_bridge_set_refclk_freq(pdata); - /* in case drm_panel is connected then HPD is not supported */ + /* + * HPD on this bridge chip is a bit useless. This is an eDP bridge + * so the HPD is an internal signal that's only there to signal that + * the panel is done powering up. ...but the bridge chip debounces + * this signal by between 100 ms and 400 ms (depending on process, + * voltage, and temperate--I measured it at about 200 ms). One + * particular panel asserted HPD 84 ms after it was powered on meaning + * that we saw HPD 284 ms after power on. ...but the same panel said + * that instead of looking at HPD you could just hardcode a delay of + * 200 ms. We'll assume that the panel driver will have the hardcoded + * delay in its prepare and always disable HPD. + * + * If HPD somehow makes sense on some future panel we'll have to + * change this to be conditional on someone specifying that HPD should + * be used. + */ regmap_update_bits(pdata->regmap, SN_HPD_DISABLE_REG, HPD_DISABLE, HPD_DISABLE); -- 220.127.116.118.g152ad8e336-goog
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-22 20:48 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2018-10-22 20:46 [PATCH 1/6] dt-bindings: drm/panel: simple: Add no-hpd property Douglas Anderson 2018-10-22 20:46 ` [PATCH 2/6] drm/panel: simple: Support panels with HPD where HPD isn't connected Douglas Anderson 2018-10-25 18:08 ` Sean Paul 2018-10-22 20:46 ` [PATCH 3/6] drm/panel: simple: Add "no-hpd" delay for Innolux TV123WAM Douglas Anderson 2018-10-22 20:46 ` Douglas Anderson [this message] 2018-10-25 18:10 ` [PATCH 4/6] drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: Remove the mystery delay Sean Paul 2018-10-22 20:46 ` [PATCH 5/6] drm/panel: simple: Innolux TV123WAM is actually P120ZDG-BF1 Douglas Anderson 2018-10-25 18:13 ` Sean Paul 2018-10-25 18:45 ` Doug Anderson 2018-10-25 19:25 ` Abhinav Kumar 2018-10-25 22:24 ` Doug Anderson 2018-10-26 14:38 ` Sean Paul 2018-10-22 20:46 ` [PATCH 6/6] dt-bindings: " Douglas Anderson 2018-10-25 18:15 ` Sean Paul 2018-10-25 19:49 ` Rob Herring 2018-10-25 18:06 ` [PATCH 1/6] dt-bindings: drm/panel: simple: Add no-hpd property Sean Paul 2018-10-25 19:28 ` Rob Herring
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 \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --subject='Re: [PATCH 4/6] drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: Remove the mystery delay' \ /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
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).