LT070ME050000 DSI panel fixes #6143
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Upstream commit e18aeed. For a given bridge pipeline if any bridge sets pre_enable_prev_first flag then the pre_enable for the previous bridge will be called before pre_enable of this bridge and opposite is done for post_disable. These are the potential bridge flags to alter bridge init order in order to satisfy the MIPI DSI host and downstream panel or bridge to function. However the existing pre_enable_prev_first logic with associated bridge ordering has broken for both pre_enable and post_disable calls. [pre_enable] The altered bridge ordering has failed if two consecutive bridges on a given pipeline enables the pre_enable_prev_first flag. Example: - Panel - Bridge 1 - Bridge 2 pre_enable_prev_first - Bridge 3 - Bridge 4 pre_enable_prev_first - Bridge 5 pre_enable_prev_first - Bridge 6 - Encoder In this example, Bridge 4 and Bridge 5 have pre_enable_prev_first. The logic looks for a bridge which enabled pre_enable_prev_first flag on each iteration and assigned the previou bridge to limit pointer if the bridge doesn't enable pre_enable_prev_first flags. If control found Bridge 2 is pre_enable_prev_first then the iteration looks for Bridge 3 and found it is not pre_enable_prev_first and assigns it's previous Bridge 4 to limit pointer and calls pre_enable of Bridge 3 and Bridge 2 and assign iter pointer with limit which is Bridge 4. Here is the actual problem, for the next iteration control look for Bridge 5 instead of Bridge 4 has iter pointer in previous iteration moved to Bridge 4 so this iteration skips the Bridge 4. The iteration found Bridge 6 doesn't pre_enable_prev_first flags so the limit assigned to Encoder. From next iteration Encoder skips as it is the last bridge for reverse order pipeline. So, the resulting pre_enable bridge order would be, - Panel, Bridge 1, Bridge 3, Bridge 2, Bridge 6, Bridge 5. This patch fixes this by assigning limit to next pointer instead of previous bridge since the iteration always looks for bridge that does NOT request prev so assigning next makes sure the last bridge on a given iteration what exactly the limit bridge is. So, the resulting pre_enable bridge order with fix would be, - Panel, Bridge 1, Bridge 3, Bridge 2, Bridge 6, Bridge 5, Bridge 4, Encoder. [post_disable] The altered bridge ordering has failed if two consecutive bridges on a given pipeline enables the pre_enable_prev_first flag. Example: - Panel - Bridge 1 - Bridge 2 pre_enable_prev_first - Bridge 3 - Bridge 4 pre_enable_prev_first - Bridge 5 pre_enable_prev_first - Bridge 6 - Encoder In this example Bridge 5 and Bridge 4 have pre_enable_prev_first. The logic looks for a bridge which enabled pre_enable_prev_first flags on each iteration and assigned the previou bridge to next and next to limit pointer if the bridge does enable pre_enable_prev_first flag. If control starts from Bridge 6 then it found next Bridge 5 is pre_enable_prev_first and immediately the next assigned to previous Bridge 6 and limit assignments to next Bridge 6 and call post_enable of Bridge 6 even though the next consecutive Bridge 5 is enabled with pre_enable_prev_first. This clearly misses the logic to find the state of next conducive bridge as everytime the next and limit assigns previous bridge if given bridge enabled pre_enable_prev_first. So, the resulting post_disable bridge order would be, - Encoder, Bridge 6, Bridge 5, Bridge 4, Bridge 3, Bridge 2, Bridge 1, Panel. This patch fixes this by assigning next with previou bridge only if the bridge doesn't enable pre_enable_prev_first flag and the next further assign it to limit. This way we can find the bridge that NOT requested prev to disable last. So, the resulting pre_enable bridge order with fix would be, - Encoder, Bridge 4, Bridge 5, Bridge 6, Bridge 2, Bridge 3, Bridge 1, Panel. Validated the bridge init ordering by incorporating dummy bridges in the sun6i-mipi-dsi pipeline Fixes: 4fb912e ("drm/bridge: Introduce pre_enable_prev_first to alter bridge init order") Signed-off-by: Jagan Teki <[email protected]> Tested-by: Michael Trimarchi <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Dave Stevenson <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Robert Foss <[email protected]> Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/[email protected]
Upstream commit 113cc3a In order to satisfy the MIPI DSI initialization sequence the bridge init order has been altered with the help of pre_enable_prev_first in pre_enable and post_disable bridge operations. Document the affected bridge init order with an example on the bridge operations helpers. Signed-off-by: Jagan Teki <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Dave Stevenson <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Robert Foss <[email protected]> Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/[email protected]
If the display has never been powered up, or been powered dow via unprepare, then don't allow the backlight subsystem to try and send DSI commands to the powered down panel. Signed-off-by: Dave Stevenson <[email protected]>
Some DSI peripheral drivers wish to send commands in the post_disable or panel unprepare callback. These are called after the DSI host's disable call, but before the host's post_disable if pre_enable_prev_first is set. Don't reset the block until post_disable to allow these commands to be sent. Signed-off-by: Dave Stevenson <[email protected]>
|
Thanks. I've still not got the backlight to come on from Pi 5... although it is supposedly sending DSI LP escape commands and they do seem to be getting onto the wire (which no longer has the funny voltage droop). |
6by9
force-pushed
the
rpi-6.6.y-drm4
branch
2 times, most recently
from
09849e6 to
5a84f5f
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
@njhollinghurst required to just clean up the handling of that panel.