lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] drm: sun4i: hdmi: Add support for sun4i HDMI encoder audio
From
Date
Hi,

On 1/15/20 10:32 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi Stefan,
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 11:04:55AM +0200, Stefan Mavrodiev wrote:
>> On 1/10/20 6:26 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 04:11:40PM +0200, Stefan Mavrodiev wrote:
>>>> Add HDMI audio support for the sun4i-hdmi encoder, used on
>>>> the older Allwinner chips - A10, A20, A31.
>>>>
>>>> Most of the code is based on the BSP implementation. In it
>>>> dditional formats are supported (S20_3LE and S24_LE), however
>>>> there where some problems with them and only S16_LE is left.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Mavrodiev <stefan@olimex.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/Kconfig | 1 +
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/Makefile | 1 +
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_hdmi.h | 30 ++
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_hdmi_audio.c | 375 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_hdmi_enc.c | 4 +
>>>> 5 files changed, 411 insertions(+)
>>>> create mode 100644 drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_hdmi_audio.c
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/Kconfig b/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/Kconfig
>>>> index 37e90e42943f..192b732b10cd 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/Kconfig
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/Kconfig
>>>> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ if DRM_SUN4I
>>>> config DRM_SUN4I_HDMI
>>>> tristate "Allwinner A10 HDMI Controller Support"
>>>> default DRM_SUN4I
>>>> + select SND_PCM_ELD
>>>> help
>>>> Choose this option if you have an Allwinner SoC with an HDMI
>>>> controller.
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/Makefile b/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/Makefile
>>>> index 0d04f2447b01..e2d82b451c36 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/Makefile
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/Makefile
>>>> @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ sun4i-frontend-y += sun4i_frontend.o
>>>> sun4i-drm-y += sun4i_drv.o
>>>> sun4i-drm-y += sun4i_framebuffer.o
>>>>
>>>> +sun4i-drm-hdmi-y += sun4i_hdmi_audio.o
>>>> sun4i-drm-hdmi-y += sun4i_hdmi_ddc_clk.o
>>>> sun4i-drm-hdmi-y += sun4i_hdmi_enc.o
>>>> sun4i-drm-hdmi-y += sun4i_hdmi_i2c.o
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_hdmi.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_hdmi.h
>>>> index 7ad3f06c127e..456964e681b0 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_hdmi.h
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_hdmi.h
>>>> @@ -42,7 +42,32 @@
>>>> #define SUN4I_HDMI_VID_TIMING_POL_VSYNC BIT(1)
>>>> #define SUN4I_HDMI_VID_TIMING_POL_HSYNC BIT(0)
>>>>
>>>> +#define SUN4I_HDMI_AUDIO_CTRL_REG 0x040
>>>> +#define SUN4I_HDMI_AUDIO_CTRL_ENABLE BIT(31)
>>>> +#define SUN4I_HDMI_AUDIO_CTRL_RESET BIT(30)
>>>> +
>>>> +#define SUN4I_HDMI_AUDIO_FMT_REG 0x048
>>>> +#define SUN4I_HDMI_AUDIO_FMT_SRC BIT(31)
>>>> +#define SUN4I_HDMI_AUDIO_FMT_LAYOUT BIT(3)
>>>> +#define SUN4I_HDMI_AUDIO_FMT_CH_CFG(n) (n - 1)
>>> There's the issue multiple times in the headers, but you should wrap n
>>> in parentheses to make sure we have no issue with precedence when
>>> calling the macro.
>>>
>>>> +int sun4i_hdmi_audio_create(struct sun4i_hdmi *hdmi)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct snd_soc_card *card = &sun4i_hdmi_audio_card;
>>>> + struct snd_soc_dai_link_component *comp;
>>>> + struct snd_soc_dai_link *link;
>>>> + int ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + ret = devm_snd_dmaengine_pcm_register(hdmi->dev,
>>>> + &sun4i_hdmi_audio_pcm_config, 0);
>>>> + if (ret) {
>>>> + DRM_ERROR("Could not register PCM\n");
>>>> + return ret;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + ret = devm_snd_soc_register_component(hdmi->dev,
>>>> + &sun4i_hdmi_audio_component,
>>>> + &sun4i_hdmi_audio_dai, 1);
>>>> + if (ret) {
>>>> + DRM_ERROR("Could not register DAI\n");
>>>> + return ret;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + link = devm_kzalloc(hdmi->dev, sizeof(*link), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>> + if (!link)
>>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>>> +
>>>> + comp = devm_kzalloc(hdmi->dev, sizeof(*comp) * 3, GFP_KERNEL);
>>>> + if (!comp)
>>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>>> +
>>>> + link->cpus = &comp[0];
>>>> + link->codecs = &comp[1];
>>>> + link->platforms = &comp[2];
>>>> +
>>>> + link->num_cpus = 1;
>>>> + link->num_codecs = 1;
>>>> + link->num_platforms = 1;
>>>> +
>>>> + link->playback_only = 1;
>>>> +
>>>> + link->name = "SUN4I-HDMI";
>>>> + link->stream_name = "SUN4I-HDMI PCM";
>>>> +
>>>> + link->codecs->name = dev_name(hdmi->dev);
>>>> + link->codecs->dai_name = sun4i_hdmi_audio_dai.name;
>>>> +
>>>> + link->cpus->dai_name = dev_name(hdmi->dev);
>>>> +
>>>> + link->platforms->name = dev_name(hdmi->dev);
>>>> +
>>>> + link->dai_fmt = SND_SOC_DAIFMT_I2S;
>>>> +
>>>> + card->dai_link = link;
>>>> + card->num_links = 1;
>>>> + card->dev = hdmi->dev;
>>>> +
>>>> + snd_soc_card_set_drvdata(card, hdmi);
>>>> + return devm_snd_soc_register_card(hdmi->dev, card);
>>> Out of curiosity, did you try to remove the module with that patch
>>> applied? IIRC, these functions will overwrite the device drvdata, and
>>> we will try to access them in unbind / remove.
>> Actually I did not. Just tried that and you're right. The module
>> crashes at the unbind call. I use sun4i_hdmi struct only for
>> regmap. Maybe create separate private structure and copy only
>> regmap?
> I think the issue is that:
>
> - In bind, we first call dev_set_drvdata on the bound device, with a
> pointer to struct sun4i_hdmi as the value. The driver_data field
> in struct device is now a pointer to our instance of struct
> sun4i_hdmi.
>
> - In audio create, you then call snd_soc_card_set_drvdata with a
> pointer to struct sun4i_hdmi as the value. The drvdata field in
> the struct snd_soc_card is now a pointer to our instance of struct
> sun4i_hdmi (so far so good).
>
> - Then you call (devm_)snd_soc_register_card. One of the thing that
> it will do is call drv_set_drvdata on the card->dev device,
> setting it to our pointer to the struct snd_soc_card we provided.
> However, since you set card->dev to the same device than the one
> initially bound, this means that you just overwrote the struct
> sun4i_hdmi pointer with a pointer to struct snd_soc_card.
>
> - The driver will operate properly, since we never really use the
> driver_data field, in the HDMI driver, except when...
>
> - At unbind, you retrieve the driver_data field, expecting a struct
> sun4i_hdmi pointer, except you have a pointer to struct
> snd_soc_card, and everything explodes.
>
> I think the way to work around that would be to create a new
> (platform_)device for the HDMI audio component, so that ASoC can work
> on that device instead.
>
> This seems to be what dw-hdmi is doing here:
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/synopsys/dw-hdmi.c#L2812
>
> (Except that they are also using platform_data, since they have
> multiple drivers, we wouldn't, so we can just lookup sun4i_hdmi using
> the parent's device driver_data).
>
>>>> +}
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_hdmi_enc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_hdmi_enc.c
>>>> index a7c4654445c7..79ecd89fb705 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_hdmi_enc.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_hdmi_enc.c
>>>> @@ -114,6 +114,9 @@ static void sun4i_hdmi_enable(struct drm_encoder *encoder)
>>>> val |= SUN4I_HDMI_VID_CTRL_HDMI_MODE;
>>>>
>>>> writel(val, hdmi->base + SUN4I_HDMI_VID_CTRL_REG);
>>>> +
>>>> + if (hdmi->hdmi_audio && sun4i_hdmi_audio_create(hdmi))
>>>> + DRM_ERROR("Couldn't create the HDMI audio adapter\n");
>>> So you create the audio card each time the display is enabled? I guess
>>> this is to deal with the hotplug?
>> Yes. See below.
>>
>>> I'm not sure this is the right thing to do. If I remember well, the
>>> ELD are here precisely to let userspace know that the display is
>>> plugged (and audio-capable) or not.
>>>
>>> Also, you don't remove that card in the disable, which mean that if
>>> you end up in a situation where you would enable the display, disable
>>> it and then enable it again, you have two audio cards now.
>> There is issue with the hotplug. When inserting the cable, the event
>> is detected and the hdmi encoder is enabled. Thus the card is
>> created. However further removal and insertions are not
>> detected.
> I guess we would need to fix that then?
>
>> This is why I don't remove the card.
>>
>> Also I count on devm_snd_soc_register_card() to release the card.
> I think you should really create the card all the time, and just
> update the ELD to let the userspace know when something has been
> created.
>
> And yeah, we should have a working hotplug, but that's a separate
> story :)

Thank you for the review. Soon I'll prepare v2.

Also I'll check the hotplug issue.

>
> Maxime

Best regards,
Stefan

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-15 13:24    [W:0.042 / U:0.140 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site