Re: [PATCH 8/8] drm/bridge: it66121: Allow link this driver as a lib

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 at 07:05, Sui Jingfeng <sui.jingfeng@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> On 2023/11/16 19:19, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 at 12:13, Sui Jingfeng <sui.jingfeng@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2023/11/16 17:30, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 at 11:14, Sui Jingfeng <sui.jingfeng@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks a lot for reviewing!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2023/11/15 00:30, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 at 17:09, Sui Jingfeng <sui.jingfeng@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>> From: Sui Jingfeng <suijingfeng@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The it66121_create_bridge() and it66121_destroy_bridge() are added to
> >>>>>> export the core functionalities. Create a connector manually by using
> >>>>>> bridge connector helpers when link as a lib.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sui Jingfeng <suijingfeng@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>     drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ite-it66121.c | 134 +++++++++++++++++++--------
> >>>>>>     include/drm/bridge/ite-it66121.h     |  17 ++++
> >>>>>>     2 files changed, 113 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
> >>>>>>     create mode 100644 include/drm/bridge/ite-it66121.h
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ite-it66121.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ite-it66121.c
> >>>>>> index 8971414a2a60..f5968b679c5d 100644
> >>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ite-it66121.c
> >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ite-it66121.c
> >>>>>> @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>     #include <drm/drm_atomic_helper.h>
> >>>>>>     #include <drm/drm_bridge.h>
> >>>>>> +#include <drm/drm_bridge_connector.h>
> >>>>>>     #include <drm/drm_edid.h>
> >>>>>>     #include <drm/drm_modes.h>
> >>>>>>     #include <drm/drm_print.h>
> >>>>>> @@ -703,14 +704,32 @@ static int it66121_bridge_attach(struct drm_bridge *bridge,
> >>>>>>                                     enum drm_bridge_attach_flags flags)
> >>>>>>     {
> >>>>>>            struct it66121_ctx *ctx = bridge_to_it66121(bridge);
> >>>>>> +       struct drm_bridge *next_bridge = ctx->next_bridge;
> >>>>>> +       struct drm_encoder *encoder = bridge->encoder;
> >>>>>>            int ret;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -       if (!(flags & DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR))
> >>>>>> -               return -EINVAL;
> >>>>>> +       if (next_bridge) {
> >>>>>> +               if (!(flags & DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR)) {
> >>>>>> +                       WARN_ON(1);
> >>>>> Why? At least use WARN() instead
> >>>> Originally I want to
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> +                       flags |= DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR;
> >>>>>> +               }
> >>>>>> +               ret = drm_bridge_attach(encoder, next_bridge, bridge, flags);
> >>>>>> +               if (ret)
> >>>>>> +                       return ret;
> >>>>>> +       } else {
> >>>>>> +               struct drm_connector *connector;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -       ret = drm_bridge_attach(bridge->encoder, ctx->next_bridge, bridge, flags);
> >>>>>> -       if (ret)
> >>>>>> -               return ret;
> >>>>>> +               if (flags & DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR)
> >>>>>> +                       WARN_ON(1);
> >>>>> No. It is perfectly fine to create attach a bridge with no next_bridge
> >>>>> and with the DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR flag.
> >>>>>
> >>>> The document say when DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR flag is set
> >>>> the bridge shall not create a drm_connector. So I think if a display
> >>>> bridge driver don't have a next bridge attached (Currently, this is
> >>>> told by the DT), it says that this is a non-DT environment. On such
> >>>> a case, this display bridge driver(it66121.ko) should behavior like
> >>>> a *agent*. Because the upstream port of it66121 is the DVO port of
> >>>> the display controller, the downstream port of it66121 is the HDMI
> >>>> connector. it66121 is on the middle. So I think the it66121.ko should
> >>>> handle all of troubles on behalf of the display controller drivers.
> >>> No. Don't make decisions for the other drivers. They might have different needs.
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>
> >>>> Therefore (when in non-DT use case), the display controller drivers
> >>>> side should not set DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR flag anymore.
> >>>> Which is to hint that the it66121 should totally in charge of those
> >>>> tasks (either by using bridge connector helper or create a connector
> >>>> manually). I don't understand on such a case, why bother display
> >>>> controller drivers anymore.
> >>> This is the reason why we had introduced this flag. It allows the
> >>> driver to customise the connector. It even allows the driver to
> >>> implement a connector on its own, completely ignoring the
> >>> drm_bridge_connector.
> >>
> >> I know what you said is right in the sense of the universe cases,
> >> but I think the most frequent(majority) use case is that there is
> >> only one display bridge on the middle. Therefore, I don't want to
> >> movethe connector things into device driver if there is only one display
> >> bridge(say it66121) in the middle. After all, there is no *direct
> >> physical connection* from the perspective of the hardware. I means that
> >> there is no hardware wires connectthe HDMI connector and the DVO port. So display controller drivers
> >> should not interact with anything related with the connector on a
> >> perfect abstract on the software side. Especially for such a simple use
> >> case. It probably make senses to make a  decision for themost frequently use case, please also note
> >> that this patch didn't introduce any-restriction for the more advance
> >> uses cases(multiple bridges in the middle).
> > So, for the sake of not having the connector in the display driver,
> > you want to add boilerplate code basically to each and every bridge
> > driver. In the end, they should all behave in the same way.
> >
> > Moreover, there is no way this implementation can work without a
> > warning if there are two bridges in a chain and the it66121 is the
> > second (the last) one. The host can not specify the
> > DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR)
> >>>>>> +                       WARN_ON(1);
> >>>>> No. It is perfectly fine to create attach a bridge with no next_bridge
> >>>>> and with the DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR flag.
> >>>>>
> >>>> The document say when DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR flag is set
> >>>> the bridge shall not create a drm_connector. So I think if a display
> >>>> bridge driver don't have a next bridge attached (Currently, this is
> >>>> told by the DT), it says that this is a non-DT environment. On such
> >>>> a case, this display bridge driver(it66121.ko) should behavior like
> >>>> a *agent*. Because the upstream port of it66121 is the DVO port of
> >>>> the display controller, the downstream port of it66121 is the HDMI
> >>>> connector. it66121 is on the middle. So I think the it66121.ko should
> >>>> handle all of troubles on behalf of the display controller drivers.
> >>> No. Don't make decisions for the other drivers. They might have different needs.
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>
> >>>> Therefore (when in non-DT use case), the display controller drivers
> >>>> side should not set DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR flag anymore.
> >>>> Which is to hint that the it66121 should totally in charge of those
> >>>> tasks (either by using bridge connector helper or create a connector
> >>>> manually). I don't understand on such a case, why bother display
> >>>> controller drivers anymore.
> >>> This is the reason why we had introduced this flag. It allows the
> >>> driver to customise the connector. It even allows the driver to
> >>> implement a connector on its own, completely ignoring the
> >>> drm_bridge_connector.
> >>
> >> I know what you said is right in the sense of the universe cases,
> >> but I think the most frequent(majority) use case is that there is
> >> only one display bridge on the middle. Therefore, I don't want to
> >> movethe connector things into device driver if there is only one display
> >> bridge(say it66121) in the middle. After all, there is no *direct
> >> physical connection* from the perspective of the hardware. I means that
> >> there is no hardware wires connectthe HDMI connector and the DVO port. So display controller drivers
> >> should not interact with anything related with the connector on a
> >> perfect abstract on the software side. Especially for such a simple use
> >> case. It probably make senses to make a  decision for themost frequently use case, please also note
> >> that this patch didn't introduce any-restriction for the more advance
> >> uses cases(multiple bridges in the middle).
> > So, for the sake of not having the connector in the display driver,
> > you want to add boilerplate code basically to each and every bridge
> > driver. In the end, they should all behave in the same way.
>
> No, I'm only intend to modify the one when there has a user emerged.
> If we have the connector related code in the KMS display driver side,
> then I think we don't honor the meaning of the word *bridge*. I was
> told drm_bridge is a modern design, if we still need the DC side
> worry about something do not have a physical connection, then it will
> not be modern anymore, it is not a good bridge.

Next time the user emerges for another bridge. And then for another.
This way the very similar code is copy-pasted over all bridge drivers.
So instead it was decided to keep it in the display driver code.

>
>
> > Moreover, there is no way this implementation can work without a
> > warning if there are two bridges in a chain and the it66121 is the
> > second (the last) one.
>
> Yes and no!
>
> If one of them are transparent, then thisimplementation still can works. It is just that this will not be a good
> abstract anymore.I do have seen such design on some notebook hardware.  But from my programming experiences,
> using two bridges are typically a bad practice in engineering. As it tend
> to increase the PCB board area and increase entire cost. As you need buy
> one more TX encoder chip. Please also consider that the embedded world focus
> on low cost and low power consume.

A typical pipeline for an embedded device can perfectly look like:
- DSI host (drm_encoder)
- DSI-HDMI or DSI-eDP bridge (drm_bridge)
- hdmi-connector or panel-bridge (drm_bridge)
- drm_bridge_connector.

Two drm_bridge instances.

>
> I think, multiple display bridges case should be avoided for middle/low end
> application. Or allow us to handle the two and/or more bridges cases in the
> future. When there has at least one user emerged, we will introduce new
> approach to handle then.
>
> Do you find any product level boards that using two external display bridge and
> one of them is it66121? If we can not even find a user, we are not even have a
> board to test if current design (state of art) works. Does it suffer from module
> loading order problems? what if their i2c slave address is same? Does such a use
> case will past the S3/S4 test? All of those concerns are imposed to every display
> bridges programmer from the very beginning.

Please add a hdmi-connector device to your testing model. You don't
have to use it, but it is a fully legit use case. And suddenly you
have to drm_bridge instances in your chain.

>
> I'm agree with the idea that drm bridges drivers involved toward to a direction
> that support more complex design, but I think we should also leave a way for the
> most frequent use case. Make it straight-forward as a canonical design.

Not having anything connector-related in the drm_bridge driver is a
canonical design.

>
> > The host can not specify the
> > DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR flag, it will cause a warning here. And
> > it can not omit the flag (as otherwise the first bridge will create a
> > connector, without consulting the second bridge).
>
> The semantics of DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR flagare implement-defined,

No, they are not. Semantics are pretty simple: do not create the
drm_connector instance. Pass the flag to the next bridge in the chain.

> for our case, I could just ignore it if their
> don't have a signal(DT or ACPI) tell me that there are multiple bridges
> in the chain. This depend on community's attitude.

Ignoring a flag is a bad idea.

>
> For it66121 with a canonical design, the host should not need to specify this flag.
> Because at the time of when the device driver(it66121.ko) get loaded, the it66121
> driver could parse the DT by itself, and detect if there has a next bridge, is it a
> connector or is it yet another display bridges. The DT speak everything about the
> topology. The flag is there just for the KMS display controller driver to explicit
> control, use it and make it more useful is the right way, is it?

No. We have been there (before the DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR was
introduced), we have gone away from it.

>
>
> >>
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +               connector = drm_bridge_connector_init(bridge->dev, encoder);
> >>>>>> +               if (IS_ERR(connector))
> >>>>>> +                       return PTR_ERR(connector);
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +               drm_connector_attach_encoder(connector, encoder);
> >>>>> This goes into your device driver.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +               ctx->connector = connector;
> >>>>>> +       }
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>            if (ctx->info->id == ID_IT66121) {
> >>>>>>                    ret = regmap_write_bits(ctx->regmap, IT66121_CLK_BANK_REG,
> >>>>>> @@ -1632,16 +1651,13 @@ static const char * const it66121_supplies[] = {
> >>>>>>            "vcn33", "vcn18", "vrf12"
> >>>>>>     };
> >>>
> >
> >



-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry