These days, it's fairly common to see panels that have touchscreens
attached to them. The panel and the touchscreen can somewhat be
thought of as totally separate devices and, historically, this is how
Linux has treated them. However, treating them as separate isn't
necessarily the best way to model the two devices, it was just that
there was no better way. Specifically, there is little practical
reason to have the touchscreen powered on when the panel is turned
off, but if we model the devices separately we have no way to keep the
two devices' power states in sync with each other.
The issue described above makes it sound as if the problem here is
just about efficiency. We're wasting power keeping the touchscreen
powered up when the screen is off. While that's true, the problem can
go deeper. Specifically, hardware designers see that there's no reason
to have the touchscreen on while the screen is off and then build
hardware assuming that software would never turn the touchscreen on
while the screen is off.
In the very simplest case of hardware designs like this, the
touchscreen and the panel share some power rails. In most cases, this
turns out not to be terrible and is, again, just a little less
efficient. Specifically if we tell Linux that the touchscreen and the
panel are using the same rails then Linux will keep the rails on when
_either_ device is turned on. That ends to work OK-ish, but now if you
turn the panel off not only will the touchscreen remain powered, but
the power rails for the panel itself won't be switched off, burning
extra power.
The above two inefficiencies are _extra_ minor when you consider the
fact that laptops rarely spend much time with the screen off. The main
use case would be when an external screen (and presumably a power
supply) is attached.
Unfortunately, it gets worse from here. On sc7180-trogdor-homestar,
for instance, the display's TCON (timing controller) sometimes crashes
if you don't power cycle it whenever you stop and restart the video
stream (like during a modeset). The touchscreen keeping the power
rails on causes real problems. One proposal in the homestar timeframe
was to move the touchscreen to an always-on rail, dedicating the main
power rail to the panel. That caused _different_ problems as talked
about in commit 557e05fa9f ("HID: i2c-hid: goodix: Stop tying the
reset line to the regulator"). The end result of all of this was to
add an extra regulator to the board, increasing cost.
Recently, Cong Yang posted a patch [1] where things are even worse.
The panel and touch controller on that system seem even more
intimately tied together and really can't be thought of separately.
To address this issue, let's start allowing devices to register
themselves as "panel followers". These devices will get called after a
panel has been powered on and before a panel is powered off. This
makes the panel the primary device in charge of the power state, which
matches how userspace uses it.
The panel follower API should be fairly straightforward to use. The
current code assumes that panel followers are using device tree and
have a "panel" property pointing to the panel to follow. More
flexibility and non-DT implementations could be added as needed.
Right now, panel followers can follow the prepare/unprepare functions.
There could be arguments made that, instead, they should follow
enable/disable. I've chosen prepare/unprepare for now since those
functions are guaranteed to power up/power down the panel and it seems
better to start the process earlier.
A bit of explaining about why this is a roll-your-own API instead of
using something more standard:
1. In standard APIs in Linux, parent devices are automatically powered
on when a child needs power. Applying that here, it would mean that
we'd force the panel on any time someone was listening to the
touchscreen. That, unfortunately, would have broken homestar's need
(if we hadn't changed the hardware, as per above) where the panel
absolutely needs to be able to power cycle itself. While one could
argue that homestar is broken hardware and we shouldn't have the
API do backflips for it, _officially_ the eDP timing guidelines
agree with homestar's needs and the panel power sequencing diagrams
show power going off. It's nice to be able to support this.
2. We could, conceibably, try to add a new flag to device_link causing
the parent to be in charge of power. Then we could at least use
normal pm_runtime APIs. This sounds great, except that we run into
problems with initial probe. As talked about in the later patch
("HID: i2c-hid: Support being a panel follower") the initial power
on of a panel follower might need to do things (like add
sub-devices) that aren't allowed in a runtime_resume function.
The above complexities explain why this API isn't using common
functions. That being said, this patch is very small and
self-contained, so if someone was later able to adapt it to using more
common APIs while solving the above issues then that could happen in
the future.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230519032316.3464732-1-yangcong5@huaqin.corp-partner.google.com
Reviewed-by: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20230727101636.v4.3.Icd5f96342d2242051c754364f4bee13ef2b986d4@changeid
In a whole pile of panel drivers, we have code to make the
prepare/unprepare/enable/disable callbacks behave as no-ops if they've
already been called. It's silly to have this code duplicated
everywhere. Add it to the core instead so that we can eventually
delete it from all the drivers. Note: to get some idea of the
duplicated code, try:
git grep 'if.*>prepared' -- drivers/gpu/drm/panel
git grep 'if.*>enabled' -- drivers/gpu/drm/panel
NOTE: arguably, the right thing to do here is actually to skip this
patch and simply remove all the extra checks from the individual
drivers. Perhaps the checks were needed at some point in time in the
past but maybe they no longer are? Certainly as we continue
transitioning over to "panel_bridge" then we expect there to be much
less variety in how these calls are made. When we're called as part of
the bridge chain, things should be pretty simple. In fact, there was
some discussion in the past about these checks [1], including a
discussion about whether the checks were needed and whether the calls
ought to be refcounted. At the time, I decided not to mess with it
because it felt too risky.
Looking closer at it now, I'm fairly certain that nothing in the
existing codebase is expecting these calls to be refcounted. The only
real question is whether someone is already doing something to ensure
prepare()/unprepare() match and enabled()/disable() match. I would say
that, even if there is something else ensuring that things match,
there's enough complexity that adding an extra bool and an extra
double-check here is a good idea. Let's add a drm_warn() to let people
know that it's considered a minor error to take advantage of
drm_panel's double-checking but we'll still make things work fine.
We'll also add an entry to the official DRM todo list to remove the
now pointless check from the panels after this patch lands and,
eventually, fixup anyone who is triggering the new warning.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210416153909.v4.27.I502f2a92ddd36c3d28d014dd75e170c2d405a0a5@changeid
Acked-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20230727101636.v4.2.I59b417d4c29151cc2eff053369ec4822b606f375@changeid
Infinite waits for completion of GPU activity have been observed in CI,
mostly inside __i915_active_wait(), triggered by igt@gem_barrier_race or
igt@perf@stress-open-close. Root cause analysis, based of ftrace dumps
generated with a lot of extra trace_printk() calls added to the code,
revealed loops of request dependencies being accidentally built,
preventing the requests from being processed, each waiting for completion
of another one's activity.
After we substitute a new request for a last active one tracked on a
timeline, we set up a dependency of our new request to wait on completion
of current activity of that previous one. While doing that, we must take
care of keeping the old request still in memory until we use its
attributes for setting up that await dependency, or we can happen to set
up the await dependency on an unrelated request that already reuses the
memory previously allocated to the old one, already released. Combined
with perf adding consecutive kernel context remote requests to different
user context timelines, unresolvable loops of await dependencies can be
built, leading do infinite waits.
We obtain a pointer to the previous request to wait upon when we
substitute it with a pointer to our new request in an active tracker,
e.g. in intel_timeline.last_request. In some processing paths we protect
that old request from being freed before we use it by getting a reference
to it under RCU protection, but in others, e.g. __i915_request_commit()
-> __i915_request_add_to_timeline() -> __i915_request_ensure_ordering(),
we don't. But anyway, since the requests' memory is SLAB_FAILSAFE_BY_RCU,
that RCU protection is not sufficient against reuse of memory.
We could protect i915_request's memory from being prematurely reused by
calling its release function via call_rcu() and using rcu_read_lock()
consequently, as proposed in v1. However, that approach leads to
significant (up to 10 times) increase of SLAB utilization by i915_request
SLAB cache. Another potential approach is to take a reference to the
previous active fence.
When updating an active fence tracker, we first lock the new fence,
substitute a pointer of the current active fence with the new one, then we
lock the substituted fence. With this approach, there is a time window
after the substitution and before the lock when the request can be
concurrently released by an interrupt handler and its memory reused, then
we may happen to lock and return a new, unrelated request.
Always get a reference to the current active fence first, before
replacing it with a new one. Having it protected from premature release
and reuse, lock it and then replace with the new one but only if not
yet signalled via a potential concurrent interrupt nor replaced with
another one by a potential concurrent thread, otherwise retry, starting
from getting a reference to the new current one. Adjust users to not
get a reference to the previous active fence themselves and always put the
reference got by __i915_active_fence_set() when no longer needed.
v3: Fix lockdep splat reports and other issues caused by incorrect use of
try_cmpxchg() (use (cmpxchg() != prev) instead)
v2: Protect request's memory by getting a reference to it in favor of
delegating its release to call_rcu() (Chris)
Closes: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/8211
Fixes: df9f85d858 ("drm/i915: Serialise i915_active_fence_set() with itself")
Suggested-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: Janusz Krzysztofik <janusz.krzysztofik@linux.intel.com>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v5.6+
Reviewed-by: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@linux.intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20230720093543.832147-2-janusz.krzysztofik@linux.intel.com
(cherry picked from commit 946e047a3d)
Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
A very basic debugging rule when a device is connected for the first
time is to access a read-only register which contains known data in
order to ensure the communication protocol is properly working. This
driver lacked any read helper which is often a critical piece for
speeding-up bring-ups.
Add a read helper and use it to verify the communication with the panel
is working as soon as possible in order to inform the user early if this
is not the case.
As this panel may work with no MISO line, the check is discarded in this
case. Upon error, we do not fail probing but just warn the user, in case
the DT description would be lacking the Rx bus width (which is likely on
old descriptions) in order to avoid breaking existing devices.
Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
Acked-by: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
Acked-by: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org>
Tested-by: Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org> # no MISO line
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20230714013756.1546769-20-sre@kernel.org
This panel from Emerging Display Technologies Corporation features an
ST7789V2 LCD controller panel inside which is almost identical to what
the Sitronix panel driver supports.
In practice, the module physical size is specific, and experiments show
that the display will malfunction if any of the following situation
occurs:
* Pixel clock is above 3MHz
* Pixel clock is not inverted
I could not properly identify the reasons behind these failures, scope
captures show valid input signals.
Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
Acked-by: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20230714013756.1546769-19-sre@kernel.org
The newly added driver only builds when DRM_DISPLAY_DP_HELPER is enabled:
x86_64-linux-ld: drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-visionox-r66451.o: in function `visionox_r66451_enable':
panel-visionox-r66451.c:(.text+0x105): undefined reference to `drm_dsc_pps_payload_pack'
Select both CONFIG_DRM_DISPLAY_DP_HELPER and CONFIG_DRM_DISPLAY_HELPER to
ensure the helper function is always available.
Fixes: a6dfab2738 ("drm/panel: Add driver for Visionox r66451 panel")
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Reviewed-by: Jessica Zhang <quic_jesszhan@quicinc.com>
Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20230719130940.659837-1-arnd@kernel.org
