From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: narmstrong@baylibre.com (Neil Armstrong) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 11:16:23 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v2 07/13] drm/meson: Add support for HDMI encoder and DW-HDMI bridge + PHY In-Reply-To: <20170404085752.jg246ilczhgmyyhy@phenom.ffwll.local> References: <1490109950-21421-1-git-send-email-narmstrong@baylibre.com> <1490109950-21421-8-git-send-email-narmstrong@baylibre.com> <20170404085752.jg246ilczhgmyyhy@phenom.ffwll.local> Message-ID: <3b6333c4-2fe0-8331-e54b-01d956e97797@baylibre.com> To: linus-amlogic@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linus-amlogic.lists.infradead.org On 04/04/2017 10:57 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 04:25:44PM +0100, Neil Armstrong wrote: >> The Amlogic Meson GXBB/GXL/GXM SoCs embeds a Synopsys DesignWare HDMI TX >> Controller with a custom Bridge + PHY around the Controller. >> >> This driver makes uses of all the custom PHY plat data callbacks and enables >> the compatible HDMI modes to be configured as a drm_encoder instance. >> >> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong > > [snip] > >> +static int meson_venc_hdmi_encoder_atomic_check(struct drm_encoder *encoder, >> + struct drm_crtc_state *crtc_state, >> + struct drm_connector_state *conn_state) >> +{ >> + return 0; >> +} > > Given the over-the-top complicated mode encoding you seem to have, this > feels like it's a bit too simply. Indeed, but the HW is really weird, every supported modes have very specific timings/parameters so moving the mode validation code from the dw-hdmi mode_valid to here would only make sense if we need to support a different HDMI controller. But you are right, but I would have preferred to have a better HW for sure... > >> + >> +static void meson_venc_hdmi_encoder_disable(struct drm_encoder *encoder) >> +{ >> + struct meson_dw_hdmi *dw_hdmi = encoder_to_meson_dw_hdmi(encoder); >> + struct meson_drm *priv = dw_hdmi->priv; >> + >> + DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("\n"); >> + >> + writel_bits_relaxed(0x3, 0, >> + priv->io_base + _REG(VPU_HDMI_SETTING)); >> + >> + writel_relaxed(0, priv->io_base + _REG(ENCI_VIDEO_EN)); >> + writel_relaxed(0, priv->io_base + _REG(ENCP_VIDEO_EN)); >> +} >> + >> +static void meson_venc_hdmi_encoder_enable(struct drm_encoder *encoder) >> +{ >> + struct meson_dw_hdmi *dw_hdmi = encoder_to_meson_dw_hdmi(encoder); >> + struct meson_drm *priv = dw_hdmi->priv; >> + >> + DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("%s\n", priv->venc.hdmi_use_enci ? "VENCI" : "VENCP"); >> + >> + if (priv->venc.hdmi_use_enci) >> + writel_relaxed(1, priv->io_base + _REG(ENCI_VIDEO_EN)); >> + else >> + writel_relaxed(1, priv->io_base + _REG(ENCP_VIDEO_EN)); >> +} >> + >> +static void meson_venc_hdmi_encoder_mode_set(struct drm_encoder *encoder, >> + struct drm_display_mode *mode, >> + struct drm_display_mode *adjusted_mode) >> +{ >> + struct meson_dw_hdmi *dw_hdmi = encoder_to_meson_dw_hdmi(encoder); >> + struct meson_drm *priv = dw_hdmi->priv; >> + int vic = drm_match_cea_mode(mode); >> + >> + DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("%d:\"%s\" vic %d\n", >> + mode->base.id, mode->name, vic); >> + >> + /* Should have been filtered */ >> + if (!vic) >> + return; >> + >> + /* VENC + VENC-DVI Mode setup */ >> + meson_venc_hdmi_mode_set(priv, vic, mode); > > So this calls a different module which export_symbol_gpls that thing. I > have no idea why arm-soc people love modularized-to-the-function level > drivers, but it feels over the top. amd/nouveau/i915 all smash everything > into one driver, makes life so much easier. I know, we are doomed on that ! But here, since the wrapping around the dw-hdmi controller is completely custom if was necessary to add a separate encoder tied to HDMI and have the physical encoding code in the common driver. Note that the platform is also able to driver a LCD via LVDS, so this encoder code should be reusable here. > > Note: bridge drivers as separate .ko makes sense, but separate .ko for > every single functional unit in your vendor IP imo totally doesn't. Actually I added a global ko for the "DRM" driver with crtc, planes and CVBS, and another ko for the HDMI bridge wrapping. > > Not going to stop you either :-) I totally agree on the complexity here ! > -Daniel >