Re: [PATCH 1/3] drm/panel-edp: Add panel entry for R140NWF5 RH

[Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>]

Hi,

On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 11:52 AM Nícolas F. R. A. Prado
<nfraprado@collabora.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 09:49:35AM +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> > Il 20/07/22 00:40, Doug Anderson ha scritto:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 1:39 PM Nícolas F. R. A. Prado
> > > <nfraprado@collabora.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Add panel identification entry for the IVO R140NWF5 RH (product ID:
> > > > 0x057d) panel.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Nícolas F. R. A. Prado <nfraprado@collabora.com>
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > The comments on the driver indicate that the T3 timing should be set on
> > > > hpd_absent, while hpd_reliable would have a shorter time just while the
> > > > HPD line stabilizes on low after power is supplied.
> > >
> > > Right. Ideally hpd_reliable is 0 unless you've got a badly-designed panel.
> > >
> > >
> > > > But can we really assume that the HPD line will be reliable at all
> > > > before the DDIC is done booting up, at which point the HPD line is
> > > > brought up? IOW, shouldn't we always delay T3 (by setting hpd_reliable =
> > > > T3), since only then we're really sure that the DDIC is done setting up
> > > > and the HPD line is reliable?
> > >
> > > If the panel is hooked up properly, then the HPD pin should be pulled
> > > low at the start and then should only go high after the panel is ready
> > > for us to talk to it, right? So it's not like the DDIC has to boot up
> > > and actively init the state. I would assume that the initial state of
> > > the "HPD output" from the panel's IC would be one of the following:
> > > * A floating input.
> > > * A pulled down input.
> > > * An output driven low.
> > >
> > > In any of those cases just adding a pull down on the line would be
> > > enough to ensure that the HPD line is reliable until the panel comes
> > > around and actively drives the line high.
> > >
> > > Remember, this is eDP and it's not something that's hot-plugged, so
> > > there's no debouncing involved and in a properly designed system there
> > > should be no time needed for the signal to stabilize. I would also
> > > point out that on the oficial eDP docs the eDP timing diagram doesn't
> > > show the initial state of "HPD" as "unknown". It shows it as low.
> > >
> > > Now, that all being said, I have seen at least one panel that glitched
> > > itself at bootup. After you powered it on it would blip its HPD line
> > > high before it had actually finished booting. Then the HPD would go
> > > low again before finally going high after the panel finished booting.
> > > This is the reason for "hpd_reliable".
> > >
> > > If you've got a board with a well-designed panel but the hookup
> > > between the panel and the board is wrong (maybe the board is missing a
> > > pulldown on the HPD line?) then you can just set the "no-hpd" property
> > > for your board. That will tell the kernel to just always delay the
> > > "hpd-absent" delay.
> > >
>
> Thank you for the detailed explanation, this does clear all doubts from what me
> and Angelo were discussing.
>
> >
> > We were concerned exactly about glitchy HPD during DDIC init, as I didn't
> > want to trust it because the only testing we could do was on just two units...
> >
> > ...but if you're sure that I was too much paranoid about that, that's good,
> > as it means I will be a bit more "relaxed" on this topic next time :-)
> >
> > > > I've set the T3 delay to hpd_absent in this series, following what's
> > > > instructed in the comments, but I'd like to discuss whether we shouldn't
> > > > be setting T3 on hpd_reliable instead, for all panels, to be on the
> > > > safer side.
> > >
> > > The way it's specified right now is more flexible, though, isn't it?
> > > This way if you're on a board where the HPD truly _isn't_ stable then
> > > you can just set the "no-hpd" and it will automatically use the
> > > "hpd_absent" delay, right?
> > >
>
> Yes, indeed. I just wasn't sure that flexibility brought us anything, but after
> your explanation above it makes much more sense now, thanks!
>
> >
> > For Chromebooks, that's totally doable, thanks to the bootloader seeking for
> > proper machine compatibles, so yes I agree with that.
> >
> > >
> > > >   drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-edp.c | 8 ++++++++
> > > >   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-edp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-edp.c
> > > > index 3626469c4cc2..675d793d925e 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-edp.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-edp.c
> > > > @@ -1854,6 +1854,12 @@ static const struct panel_delay delay_100_500_e200 = {
> > > >          .enable = 200,
> > > >   };
> > > >
> > > > +static const struct panel_delay delay_200_500_e200 = {
> > > > +       .hpd_absent = 200,
> > > > +       .unprepare = 500,
> > > > +       .enable = 200,
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > >   #define EDP_PANEL_ENTRY(vend_chr_0, vend_chr_1, vend_chr_2, product_id, _delay, _name) \
> > > >   { \
> > > >          .name = _name, \
> > > > @@ -1882,6 +1888,8 @@ static const struct edp_panel_entry edp_panels[] = {
> > > >
> > > >          EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('C', 'M', 'N', 0x114c, &innolux_n116bca_ea1.delay, "N116BCA-EA1"),
> > > >
> > > > +       EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('I', 'V', 'O', 0x057d, &delay_200_500_e200, "R140NWF5 RH"),
> > > > +
> > >
> > > This looks fine to me:
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
> > >
> > > I'm happy to apply this in a day or two assuming you're OK with my
> > > explanation above.
> >
> > Thank you for the long mail, your explanation was truly helpful!
> > (especially for me being paranoid :-P)
> >
> > So, I agree to go with that one, for which:
> >
> > Reviewed-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>
> >
> > Nic, green light?
>
> Yep.
>
> I haven't seen any issues with keeping the hpd_reliable as 0 in the machine I
> have access to, and Douglas' explanation cleared up all the doubts of how this
> all works, so, Douglas, please feel free to merge this as is.
>
> In that case, since patch 3 was also merged already I'll send a v2 just for
> patch 2 separately.

Great! I went ahead and applied to drm-misc-next then.

f6ff4570e567 drm/panel-edp: Add panel entry for R140NWF5 RH