lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Dec]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v12 2/5] dt-bindings: msm/dp: add data-lanes and link-frequencies property
On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 at 00:57, Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 1:12 PM Dmitry Baryshkov
> <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 15/12/2022 02:38, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > Quoting Kuogee Hsieh (2022-12-14 14:56:23)
> > >>
> > >> On 12/13/2022 3:06 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > >>> Quoting Kuogee Hsieh (2022-12-13 13:44:05)
> > >>>> Add both data-lanes and link-frequencies property into endpoint
> > >>> Why do we care? Please tell us why it's important.
> > >
> > > Any response?
> > >
> > >>>> @@ -193,6 +217,8 @@ examples:
> > >>>> reg = <1>;
> > >>>> endpoint {
> > >>>> remote-endpoint = <&typec>;
> > >>>> + data-lanes = <0 1>;
> > >>>> + link-frequencies = /bits/ 64 <1620000000 2700000000 5400000000 8100000000>;
> > >>>> };
> > >>> So far we haven't used the output port on the DP controller in DT.
> > >>>
> > >>> I'm still not clear on what we should do in general for DP because
> > >>> there's a PHY that actually controls a lane count and lane mapping. In
> > >>> my mental model of the SoC, this DP controller's output port is
> > >>> connected to the DP PHY, which then sends the DP lanes out of the SoC to
> > >>> the next downstream device (i.e. a DP connector or type-c muxer). Having
> > >>> a remote-endpoint property with a phandle to typec doesn't fit my mental
> > >>> model. I'd expect it to be the typec PHY.
> > >> ack
> > >>>
> > >>> That brings up the question: when we have 2 lanes vs. 4 lanes will we
> > >>> duplicate the data-lanes property in the PHY binding? I suspect we'll
> > >>> have to. Hopefully that sort of duplication is OK?
> > >> Current we have limitation by reserve 2 data lanes for usb2, i am not
> > >> sure duplication to 4 lanes will work automatically.
> > >>>
> > >>> Similarly, we may have a redriver that limits the link-frequencies
> > >>> property further (e.g. only support <= 2.7GHz). Having multiple
> > >>> link-frequencies along the graph is OK, right? And isn't the
> > >>> link-frequencies property known here by fact that the DP controller
> > >>> tells us which SoC this controller is for, and thus we already know the
> > >>> supported link frequencies?
> > >>>
> > >>> Finally, I wonder if we should put any of this in the DP controller's
> > >>> output endpoint, or if we can put these sorts of properties in the DP
> > >>> PHY binding directly? Can't we do that and then when the DP controller
> > >>> tries to set 4 lanes, the PHY immediately fails the call and the link
> > >>> training algorithm does its thing and tries fewer lanes? And similarly,
> > >>> if link-frequencies were in the PHY's binding, the PHY could fail to set
> > >>> those frequencies during link training, returning an error to the DP
> > >>> controller, letting the training move on to a lower frequency. If we did
> > >>> that this patch series would largely be about modifying the PHY binding,
> > >>> updating the PHY driver to enforce constraints, and handling errors
> > >>> during link training in the DP controller (which may already be done? I
> > >>> didn't check).
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> phy/pll have different configuration base on link lanes and rate.
> > >>
> > >> it has to be set up before link training can start.
> > >>
> > >> Once link training start, then there are no any interactions between
> > >> controller and phy during link training session.
> > >
> > > What do you mean? The DP controller calls phy_configure() and changes
> > > the link rate. The return value from phy_configure() should be checked
> > > and link training should skip link rates that aren't supported and/or
> > > number of lanes that aren't supported.
> >
> > I'd toss another coin into the argument. We have previously discussed
> > using the link-frequencies property in the context of limiting link
> > speeds for the DSI. There we have both hardware (SoC) limitations and
> > the board limitations as in some cases the DSI lanes can not sustain
> > some high rate. I still hope for these patches to materialize at some point.
> >
> > For the DP this is more or less the same story. We have the hardware
> > (SoC, PHY, etc) limitations, but also we have the board/device
> > limitations. For example some of the board might not be able to support
> > HBR3 e.g. because of the PCB design. And while it might be logical to
> > also add the 'max bit rate' support to the eDP & combo PHYs, it
> > definitely makes sense to be able to limit the rate on the DP <->
> > `something' link.
> >
> > Now, for all the practical purposes this `something' for the DP is the
> > DP connector, the eDP panel or the USB-C mux (with the possible
> > redrivers in the middle).
> >
> > Thus I'd support Kuogee's proposal to have link-frequencies in the DP's
> > outbound endpoint. This is the link which will be driven by the data
> > stream from the Linux point of view. The PHY is linked through the
> > 'phys' property, but it doesn't participate in the USB-C (or in the
> > connector/panel) graph.
> >
> > Now let's discuss the data lanes. Currently we have them in the DP
> > property itself. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that we can
> > drop it for all the practical purposes. Judging by the DP compat string
> > the driver can determine if it uses 2 lanes (eDP) or 4 lanes
> > (full-featured DP). In case of USB-C when the altmode dictates whether
> > to use 2 or 4 lanes, the TCPM (Type-C Port Manager) will negotiate the
> > mode and pin configuration, then inform the DP controller about the
> > selected amount of lanes. Then DP informs the PHY about the selection
> > (note, PHY doesn't have control at all in this scenario).
> >
> > The only problematic case is the mixed mode ports, which if I understand
> > correctly, can be configured either to eDP or DP modes. I'm not sure who
> > specifies and limits the amount of lanes available to the DP controller.
>
> For the most part, I'll let others debate the best way to represent
> this data, but I'll comment that the above statement isn't really
> correct. Specifically it's wrong to say that eDP is 2 lanes and DP is
> 2/4 lanes. I will say:
>
> * An eDP display could support 1, 2, or 4 lanes.
> * An eDP controller could support 1, 2, or 4 lanes.
> * A board may wire up 1, 2, or 4 lanes.
>
> Thus if you have an eDP controller that should be capable of 4 lanes
> and an eDP panel that says it's capable of 4 lanes, you still might
> need to use a 2 lane configuration because a board only wired up 2 of
> the lanes. IMO the number of lanes that are wired up should be in the
> device tree somewhere because that's where this board limit should be
> defined.
>
> Similarly, you could have an eDP controller that supports 4 lanes, you
> may wire 4 lanes off the board, but an eDP panel may only support 1 or
> 2 lanes. This is handled by querying the panel and asking how many
> lanes it supports.

Thank you for the explanations. So the `data-lanes' should definitely
be a property of the link between the DP controller and the eDP panel.
This is the path that Kuogee has been using.

--
With best wishes
Dmitry

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-12-16 00:05    [W:0.055 / U:0.252 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site