IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
Panel power sequence says timing T8 (time from link idle to turn on
the backlight) should be at least 50 ms. This is what the .enable
delay in simple-panel is for, so set it. NOTE: this overlaps with the
80 ms .prepare_to_enable delay on purpose. The data sheet says that
at least 80 ms needs to pass between HPD going high and turning on the
backlight and that at least 50 ms needs to pass between the link idle
and the backlight going on. Thus it works like this on the system in
front of me:
* In bridge chip pre_enable call drm_panel_prepare()
* drm_panel_prepare() -> panel_simple_prepare()
* Wait for HPD GPIO to go high.
* Start counting for 80 ms (store in prepared_time)
* In bridge chip enable, train link then call drm_panel_enable()
* drm_panel_enable() -> panel_simple_enable()
* panel_simple_enable() does hardcoded 50 ms delay then enforces 80 ms
from HPD going high (in case the bridge took less than 30 ms to
enable / link train).
* drm_panel_enable() -> backlight_enable().
Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20210222081716.1.I1a45aece5d2ac6a2e73bbec50da2086e43e0862b@changeid
On an Innolux N116BCA panel that I have in front of me, sometimes HPD
simply doesn't assert no matter how long you wait for it. As per the
very wise advice of The IT Crowd ("Have you tried turning it off and
on again?") it appears that power cycling is enough to kick this panel
back into a sane state.
>From tests on this panel, it appears that leaving it powered off for a
while stimulates the problem. Adding a 6 second sleep at the start of
panel_simple_prepare_once() makes it happen fairly reliably and, with
this delay, I saw up to 3 retries needed sometimes. Without the 6
second sleep, however, the panel came up much more reliably the first
time or after only 1 retry.
While it's unknown what the problems are with this panel (and probably
the hardware should be debugged), adding a few retries to the power on
routine doesn't seem insane. Even if this panel's problems are
attributed to the fact that it's pre-production and/or can be fixed,
retries clearly can help in some cases and really don't hurt.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20210115144345.v2.3.I6916959daa7c5c915e889442268d23338de17923@changeid
Add support for the BOE NV110WTM-N61 panel. The EDID lists two modes
(one for 60 Hz refresh rate and one for 40 Hz), so we'll list both of
them here.
Note that the panel datasheet requires 80 ms between HPD asserting and
the backlight power being turned on. We'll use the new timing
constraints structure to do this cleanly. This assumes that the
backlight will be enabled _after_ the panel enable finishes. This is
how it works today and seems a sane assumption.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20201109170018.v4.4.I71b2118dfc00fd7b43b02d28e7b890081c2acfa2@changeid
On the panel I'm looking at, there's an 80 ms minimum time between HPD
being asserted by the panel and setting the backlight enable GPIO.
While we could just add an 80 ms "enable" delay, this is not ideal.
Link training is allowed to happen in parallel with this delay so the
fixed 80 ms delay over-delays.
We'll support this by logging the time at the end of prepare and then
delaying in enable if enough time hasn't passed.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20201109170018.v4.3.Ib9ce3c6482f464bf594161581521ced46bbd54ed@changeid
It is believed that all of the current users of the "unprepare" delay
don't actually need to wait the amount of time specified directly in
the unprepare phase. The purpose of the delay that's specified is to
allow the panel to fully power off so that we don't try to power it
back on before it's managed to full power down.
Let's use this observation to avoid the fixed delay that we currently
have. Instead of delaying, we'll note the current time when the
unprepare happens. If someone then tries to prepare the panel later
and not enough time has passed, we'll do the delay before starting the
prepare phase.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20201109170018.v4.2.I06a95d83e7fa1bd919c8edd63dacacb5436e495a@changeid
Backmerging drm-next into drm-misc-next for nouveau and panel updates.
Resolves a conflict between ttm and nouveau, where struct ttm_mem_res got
renamed to struct ttm_resource.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>
Warn if we detect a panel with incomplete/wrong description.
This is inspired by a similar patch by Laurent that introduced checks
for LVDS panels - this extends the checks to the remaining type of
connectors.
This is known to warn for some of the existing panels but added
despite this as we need help from people using the panels to
add the missing info.
The checks are not complete but will catch the most common mistakes.
The checks at the same time serve as documentation for the minimum
required description for a panel.
The checks uses dev_warn() as we know this will hit. WARN() was
too noisy at the moment for anything else than LVDS.
v3:
- %d => %u for bpc (Laurent)
v2:
- Use dev_warn (Laurent)
- Check for empty bus_flags
Signed-off-by: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
Cc: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
Cc: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20200726203324.3722593-2-sam@ravnborg.org
On boe_nv133fhm_n62 (and presumably on boe_nv133fhm_n61) a scope shows
a small spike on the HPD line right when you power the panel on. The
picture looks something like this:
+--------------------------------------
|
|
|
Power ---+
+---
|
++ |
+----+| |
HPD -----+ +---------------------------+
So right when power is applied there's a little bump in HPD and then
there's small spike right before it goes low. The total time of the
little bump plus the spike was measured on one panel as being 8 ms
long. The total time for the HPD to go high on the same panel was
51.2 ms, though the datasheet only promises it is < 200 ms.
When asked about this glitch, BOE indicated that it was expected and
persisted until the TCON has been initialized.
If this was a real hotpluggable DP panel then this wouldn't matter a
whole lot. We'd debounce the HPD signal for a really long time and so
the little blip wouldn't hurt. However, this is not a hotpluggable DP
panel and the the debouncing logic isn't needed and just shows down
the time needed to get the display working. This is why the code in
panel_simple_prepare() doesn't do debouncing and just waits for HPD to
go high once. Unfortunately if we get unlucky and happen to poll the
HPD line right at the spike we can try talking to the panel before
it's ready.
Let's handle this situation by putting in a 15 ms prepare delay and
decreasing the "hpd absent delay" by 15 ms. That means:
* If you don't have HPD hooked up at all you've still got the
hardcoded 200 ms delay.
* If you've got HPD hooked up you will always wait at least 15 ms
before checking HPD. The only case where this could be bad is if
the panel is sharing a voltage rail with something else in the
system and was already turned on long before the panel came up. In
such a case we'll be delaying 15 ms for no reason, but it's not a
huge delay and I don't see any other good solution to handle that
case.
Even though the delay was measured as 8 ms, 15 ms was chosen to give a
bit of margin.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20200716132120.1.I01e738cd469b61fc9b28b3ef1c6541a4f48b11bf@changeid
