Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 29 Nov 2022 08:57:21 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 7/8] drm: rcar-du: dsi: Add r8A779g0 support | From | Tomi Valkeinen <> |
| |
On 29/11/2022 02:43, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 10:50:30AM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: >> On 17/11/2022 17:46, Kieran Bingham wrote: >>> Quoting Tomi Valkeinen (2022-11-17 12:25:46) >>>> From: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen+renesas@ideasonboard.com> >>>> >>>> Add DSI support for r8a779g0. The main differences to r8a779a0 are in >>>> the PLL and PHTW setups. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen+renesas@ideasonboard.com> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_mipi_dsi.c | 484 +++++++++++++++---- >>>> drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_mipi_dsi_regs.h | 6 +- >>>> 2 files changed, 384 insertions(+), 106 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_mipi_dsi.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_mipi_dsi.c >>>> index a7f2b7f66a17..723c35726c38 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_mipi_dsi.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_mipi_dsi.c >>>> @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ >>>> #include <linux/delay.h> >>>> #include <linux/io.h> >>>> #include <linux/iopoll.h> >>>> +#include <linux/math64.h> >>>> #include <linux/module.h> >>>> #include <linux/of.h> >>>> #include <linux/of_device.h> >>>> @@ -28,6 +29,20 @@ >>>> #include "rcar_mipi_dsi.h" >>>> #include "rcar_mipi_dsi_regs.h" >>>> >>>> +#define MHZ(v) ((v) * 1000000u) >>>> + >>>> +enum rcar_mipi_dsi_hw_model { >>>> + RCAR_DSI_R8A779A0, >>>> + RCAR_DSI_R8A779G0, >>>> +}; >>>> + >>>> +struct rcar_mipi_dsi_device_info { >>>> + enum rcar_mipi_dsi_hw_model model; >>>> + const struct dsi_clk_config *clk_cfg; >>>> + u8 clockset2_m_offset; >>>> + u8 clockset2_n_offset; >>>> +}; >>>> + >>>> struct rcar_mipi_dsi { >>>> struct device *dev; >>>> const struct rcar_mipi_dsi_device_info *info; >>>> @@ -50,6 +65,17 @@ struct rcar_mipi_dsi { >>>> unsigned int lanes; >>>> }; >>>> >>>> +struct dsi_setup_info { >>>> + unsigned long hsfreq; >>>> + u16 hsfreqrange; >>>> + >>>> + unsigned long fout; >>>> + u16 m; >>>> + u16 n; >>>> + u16 vclk_divider; >>>> + const struct dsi_clk_config *clkset; >>>> +}; >>>> + >>>> static inline struct rcar_mipi_dsi * >>>> bridge_to_rcar_mipi_dsi(struct drm_bridge *bridge) >>>> { >>>> @@ -62,22 +88,6 @@ host_to_rcar_mipi_dsi(struct mipi_dsi_host *host) >>>> return container_of(host, struct rcar_mipi_dsi, host); >>>> } >>>> >>>> -static const u32 phtw[] = { >>>> - 0x01020114, 0x01600115, /* General testing */ >>>> - 0x01030116, 0x0102011d, /* General testing */ >>>> - 0x011101a4, 0x018601a4, /* 1Gbps testing */ >>>> - 0x014201a0, 0x010001a3, /* 1Gbps testing */ >>>> - 0x0101011f, /* 1Gbps testing */ >>>> -}; >>>> - >>>> -static const u32 phtw2[] = { >>>> - 0x010c0130, 0x010c0140, /* General testing */ >>>> - 0x010c0150, 0x010c0180, /* General testing */ >>>> - 0x010c0190, >>>> - 0x010a0160, 0x010a0170, >>>> - 0x01800164, 0x01800174, /* 1Gbps testing */ >>>> -}; >>>> - >>>> static const u32 hsfreqrange_table[][2] = { >>>> { 80000000U, 0x00 }, { 90000000U, 0x10 }, { 100000000U, 0x20 }, >>>> { 110000000U, 0x30 }, { 120000000U, 0x01 }, { 130000000U, 0x11 }, >>>> @@ -103,24 +113,53 @@ static const u32 hsfreqrange_table[][2] = { >>>> { /* sentinel */ }, >>>> }; >>>> >>>> -struct vco_cntrl_value { >>>> +struct dsi_clk_config { >>>> u32 min_freq; >>>> u32 max_freq; >>>> - u16 value; >>>> + u8 vco_cntrl; >>>> + u8 cpbias_cntrl; >>>> + u8 gmp_cntrl; >>>> + u8 int_cntrl; >>>> + u8 prop_cntrl; >>>> }; >>>> >>>> -static const struct vco_cntrl_value vco_cntrl_table[] = { >>>> - { .min_freq = 40000000U, .max_freq = 55000000U, .value = 0x3f }, >>>> - { .min_freq = 52500000U, .max_freq = 80000000U, .value = 0x39 }, >>>> - { .min_freq = 80000000U, .max_freq = 110000000U, .value = 0x2f }, >>>> - { .min_freq = 105000000U, .max_freq = 160000000U, .value = 0x29 }, >>>> - { .min_freq = 160000000U, .max_freq = 220000000U, .value = 0x1f }, >>>> - { .min_freq = 210000000U, .max_freq = 320000000U, .value = 0x19 }, >>>> - { .min_freq = 320000000U, .max_freq = 440000000U, .value = 0x0f }, >>>> - { .min_freq = 420000000U, .max_freq = 660000000U, .value = 0x09 }, >>>> - { .min_freq = 630000000U, .max_freq = 1149000000U, .value = 0x03 }, >>>> - { .min_freq = 1100000000U, .max_freq = 1152000000U, .value = 0x01 }, >>>> - { .min_freq = 1150000000U, .max_freq = 1250000000U, .value = 0x01 }, >>>> +static const struct dsi_clk_config dsi_clk_cfg_r8a779a0[] = { >>>> + { 40000000u, 55000000u, 0x3f, 0x10, 0x01, 0x00, 0x0b }, >>>> + { 52500000u, 80000000u, 0x39, 0x10, 0x01, 0x00, 0x0b }, >>>> + { 80000000u, 110000000u, 0x2f, 0x10, 0x01, 0x00, 0x0b }, >>>> + { 105000000u, 160000000u, 0x29, 0x10, 0x01, 0x00, 0x0b }, >>>> + { 160000000u, 220000000u, 0x1f, 0x10, 0x01, 0x00, 0x0b }, >>>> + { 210000000u, 320000000u, 0x19, 0x10, 0x01, 0x00, 0x0b }, >>>> + { 320000000u, 440000000u, 0x0f, 0x10, 0x01, 0x00, 0x0b }, >>>> + { 420000000u, 660000000u, 0x09, 0x10, 0x01, 0x00, 0x0b }, >>>> + { 630000000u, 1149000000u, 0x03, 0x10, 0x01, 0x00, 0x0b }, >>>> + { 1100000000u, 1152000000u, 0x01, 0x10, 0x01, 0x00, 0x0b }, >>>> + { 1150000000u, 1250000000u, 0x01, 0x10, 0x01, 0x00, 0x0c }, >>> >>> Sigh ... is it this one 0x0c value that means we need to keep all these >>> entries repeated ? :-S >>> >>> If it weren't for that, it seems we could keep just two sets of >>>> + u8 cpbias_cntrl; >>>> + u8 gmp_cntrl; >>>> + u8 int_cntrl; >>>> + u8 prop_cntrl; >>> >>> One for each of the 9a0, and the 9g0... >>> >>> But this is fine, and I guess the implication is there may be other >>> future differences to come in other platforms. >>> >>> It could be refactored then when we have more visibility. >> >> Yes, it's not so nice. And afaiu some of these values should really be >> solved dynamically in the code. But the docs list these tables and don't >> explain how to come up with those values, so... I think having these >> tables is the safest way. > > We could drop the cpbias_cntrl, gmp_cntrl and int_cntrl fields and set > them based on the IP version.
We could, but I have no idea what those do, and don't know if there may be a case (for a future SoC or if the optimal values are updated for current ones) where multiple values are used on a single soc. So I thought that it's better to keep them aligned to the HW docs (i.e. together in a table).
Tomi
| |