Re: [PATCH V2 1/6] drm: bridge: samsung-dsim: fix blanking packet size calculation

[Adam Ford]

On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 4:03 AM Jagan Teki <jagan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 23, 2023 at 5:42 PM Adam Ford <aford173@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > From: Lucas Stach <l.stach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Scale the blanking packet sizes to match the ratio between HS clock
> > and DPI interface clock. The controller seems to do internal scaling
> > to the number of active lanes, so we don't take those into account.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lucas Stach <l.stach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Adam Ford <aford173@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/samsung-dsim.c | 18 +++++++++++++++---
> >  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/samsung-dsim.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/samsung-dsim.c
> > index e0a402a85787..2be3b58624c3 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/samsung-dsim.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/samsung-dsim.c
> > @@ -874,17 +874,29 @@ static void samsung_dsim_set_display_mode(struct samsung_dsim *dsi)
> >         u32 reg;
> >
> >         if (dsi->mode_flags & MIPI_DSI_MODE_VIDEO) {
> > +               int byte_clk_khz = dsi->burst_clk_rate / 1000 / 8;
> > +               int hfp = (m->hsync_start - m->hdisplay) * byte_clk_khz / m->clock;
>
> I do not quite understand why it depends on burst_clk_rate, would you
> please explain? does it depends on bpp something like this
>
> mipi_dsi_pixel_format_to_bpp(format) / 8

The pixel clock is currently set to the burst clock rate.  Dividing
the clock by 1000 gets the pixel clock in KHz, and dividing by 8
converts bits to bytes.
Later in the series, I change the clock from the burst clock to the
cached value returned from samsung_dsim_set_pll.

>
> > +               int hbp = (m->htotal - m->hsync_end) * byte_clk_khz / m->clock;
> > +               int hsa = (m->hsync_end - m->hsync_start) * byte_clk_khz / m->clock;
> > +
> > +               /* remove packet overhead when possible */
> > +               hfp = max(hfp - 6, 0);
> > +               hbp = max(hbp - 6, 0);
> > +               hsa = max(hsa - 6, 0);
>
> 6 blanking packet overhead here means, 4 bytes + payload + 2 bytes
> format? does this packet overhead depends on the respective porch's
> like hpf, hbp and hsa has different packet overheads?

Lucas might be able to explain this better.  However, it does match
the values of the downstream NXP kernel, and I tried playing with
these values manually, and 6 appeared to be the only number that
seemed to work for me too.  I abandoned my approach for Lucas'
implementation, because it seemed more clear than mine.
Maybe Lucas can chime in, since this is really his patch.

adam
>
> Jagan.