Re: [PATCH] Revert "drm/bridge: lt9611: Do not generate HFP/HBP/HSA and EOT packet"

[Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>]

On 8/2/23 15:16, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On 02/08/2023 15:07, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> On 8/2/23 10:52, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>> This reverts commit [1] to fix display regression on the Dragonboard 
>>> 845c
>>> (SDM845) devboard.
>>>
>>> There's a mismatch on the real action of the following flags:
>>> - MIPI_DSI_MODE_VIDEO_NO_HSA
>>> - MIPI_DSI_MODE_VIDEO_NO_HFP
>>> - MIPI_DSI_MODE_VIDEO_NO_HBP
>>> which leads to a non-working display on qcom platforms.
>>>
>>> [1] 8ddce13ae696 ("drm/bridge: lt9611: Do not generate HFP/HBP/HSA 
>>> and EOT packet")
>>>
>>> Cc: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
>>> Cc: Robert Foss <rfoss@kernel.org>
>>> Cc: Jagan Teki <jagan@amarulasolutions.com>
>>> Cc: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
>>> Cc: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com>
>>> Fixes: 8ddce13ae69 ("drm/bridge: lt9611: Do not generate HFP/HBP/HSA 
>>> and EOT packet")
>>> Reported-by: Amit Pundir <amit.pundir@linaro.org>
>>> Link: 
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAMi1Hd0TD=2z_=bcDrht3H_wiLvAFcv8Z-U_r_KUOoeMc6UMjw@mail.gmail.com/
>>> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>
>>
>> This breaks LT9611 operation on i.MX8M Mini/Nano/Plus, so, NAK.
>>
>> I am currently using this LT9611 with Linux 6.1.y in production and 
>> this is not acceptable. I also believe the correct fix is on the MSM 
>> side, not on the LT9611 driver side, since MSM incorrectly implements 
>> these flags.
> 
> There is no indication that MSM gets these flags wrong.
> 
> Let me quote the DSI 1.3 (I think Abhinav already quoted DSI 1.2).
> 
> Chapter 8.11.1 Transmission Packet Sequences:
> 
> ========
> If a peripheral timing specification for HBP or HFP minimum period is 
> zero, the corresponding Blanking
> Packet may be omitted. If the HBP or HFP maximum period is zero, the 
> corresponding blanking packet
> shall be omitted.
> ========
> 
> Next, chapter 8.11.2 Non-Burst Mode with Sync Pulses
> 
> ======
> Normally, periods shown as HSA (Horizontal Sync Active), HBP (Horizontal 
> Back Porch) and HFP
> (Horizontal Front Porch) are filled by Blanking Packets, with lengths 
> (including packet overhead)
> calculated to match the period specified by the peripheral’s data sheet. 
> Alternatively, if there is sufficient
> time to transition from HS to LP mode and back again, a timed interval 
> in LP mode may substitute for a
> Blanking Packet, thus saving power. During HSA, HBP and HFP periods, the 
> bus should stay in the LP-11
> state.
> ========
> 
> So, by the spec, sending the HSA / HBP / HFP as blanking packets should 
> always be accepted (and it is the default mode). Switching to LP-11 
> should be permitted if there is a sufficient time to switch to LP-11 and 
> back. Not sending the packets is only possible if the peripheral 
> (lt9611) says so.
> 
> We already know that lt9611 breaks if we try switching to LP-11 during 
> this period. We know that the there is a requirement time for the HSA / 
> HBP / HFP, because the HDMI monitor needs them. Thus, I can only 
> emphasise that the behaviour before the offending patch was correct.
> 
> Last, but not least, breaking the in-kernel platform for the out-of-tree 
> peripheral doesn't sound correct.

Except the MX8M support is all in-tree now, so please drop the 
"out-of-tree" argument. That I am using 6.1.y on those platforms in 
production makes no difference.

> I can only propose the following steps:
> 
> 1. land the revert to unbreak existing users.

That's just trading breaking one set of users for breaking another set 
of users.

> 2. Marek to propose and land the DT bindings & driver change that will 
> enable the workaround for the particular platform (i.MX8m).

Since I have no access to the QCOM hardware or datasheet, can you have a 
look at the NXP.com MX8M M/N/P datasheets (those are available) and 
compare their behavior with the QCOM behavior ? I assume you do have the 
QCOM datasheets available.