2013-08-30 13:36:43 +02:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Copyright (C) 2013, NVIDIA Corporation. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
|
|
|
|
|
* copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"),
|
|
|
|
|
* to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation
|
|
|
|
|
* the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sub license,
|
|
|
|
|
* and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the
|
|
|
|
|
* Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* The above copyright notice and this permission notice (including the
|
|
|
|
|
* next paragraph) shall be included in all copies or substantial portions
|
|
|
|
|
* of the Software.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
|
|
|
|
|
* IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
|
|
|
|
|
* FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL
|
|
|
|
|
* THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
|
|
|
|
|
* LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING
|
|
|
|
|
* FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER
|
|
|
|
|
* DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-07 15:03:30 +01:00
|
|
|
#include <linux/backlight.h>
|
2013-08-30 13:36:43 +02:00
|
|
|
#include <linux/err.h>
|
|
|
|
|
#include <linux/module.h>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include <drm/drm_crtc.h>
|
|
|
|
|
#include <drm/drm_panel.h>
|
2019-12-07 15:03:30 +01:00
|
|
|
#include <drm/drm_print.h>
|
2013-08-30 13:36:43 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
static DEFINE_MUTEX(panel_lock);
|
|
|
|
|
static LIST_HEAD(panel_list);
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-05-06 16:01:37 +02:00
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
|
* DOC: drm panel
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* The DRM panel helpers allow drivers to register panel objects with a
|
|
|
|
|
* central registry and provide functions to retrieve those panels in display
|
|
|
|
|
* drivers.
|
2019-01-11 17:40:46 +01:00
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* For easy integration into drivers using the &drm_bridge infrastructure please
|
|
|
|
|
* take look at drm_panel_bridge_add() and devm_drm_panel_bridge_add().
|
2016-05-06 16:01:37 +02:00
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
|
* drm_panel_init - initialize a panel
|
|
|
|
|
* @panel: DRM panel
|
2019-08-23 22:32:43 +03:00
|
|
|
* @dev: parent device of the panel
|
|
|
|
|
* @funcs: panel operations
|
2019-09-04 16:28:03 +03:00
|
|
|
* @connector_type: the connector type (DRM_MODE_CONNECTOR_*) corresponding to
|
|
|
|
|
* the panel interface
|
2016-05-06 16:01:37 +02:00
|
|
|
*
|
2019-08-23 22:32:43 +03:00
|
|
|
* Initialize the panel structure for subsequent registration with
|
|
|
|
|
* drm_panel_add().
|
2016-05-06 16:01:37 +02:00
|
|
|
*/
|
2019-08-23 22:32:43 +03:00
|
|
|
void drm_panel_init(struct drm_panel *panel, struct device *dev,
|
2019-09-04 16:28:03 +03:00
|
|
|
const struct drm_panel_funcs *funcs, int connector_type)
|
2013-08-30 13:36:43 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&panel->list);
|
2019-08-23 22:32:43 +03:00
|
|
|
panel->dev = dev;
|
|
|
|
|
panel->funcs = funcs;
|
2019-09-04 16:28:03 +03:00
|
|
|
panel->connector_type = connector_type;
|
2013-08-30 13:36:43 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_panel_init);
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-05-06 16:01:37 +02:00
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
|
* drm_panel_add - add a panel to the global registry
|
|
|
|
|
* @panel: panel to add
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Add a panel to the global registry so that it can be looked up by display
|
|
|
|
|
* drivers.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
2020-08-01 20:02:13 +08:00
|
|
|
void drm_panel_add(struct drm_panel *panel)
|
2013-08-30 13:36:43 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
mutex_lock(&panel_lock);
|
|
|
|
|
list_add_tail(&panel->list, &panel_list);
|
|
|
|
|
mutex_unlock(&panel_lock);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_panel_add);
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-05-06 16:01:37 +02:00
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
|
* drm_panel_remove - remove a panel from the global registry
|
|
|
|
|
* @panel: DRM panel
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Removes a panel from the global registry.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
2013-08-30 13:36:43 +02:00
|
|
|
void drm_panel_remove(struct drm_panel *panel)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
mutex_lock(&panel_lock);
|
|
|
|
|
list_del_init(&panel->list);
|
|
|
|
|
mutex_unlock(&panel_lock);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_panel_remove);
|
|
|
|
|
|
2019-08-04 22:16:32 +02:00
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
|
* drm_panel_prepare - power on a panel
|
|
|
|
|
* @panel: DRM panel
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Calling this function will enable power and deassert any reset signals to
|
|
|
|
|
* the panel. After this has completed it is possible to communicate with any
|
|
|
|
|
* integrated circuitry via a command bus.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Return: 0 on success or a negative error code on failure.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
int drm_panel_prepare(struct drm_panel *panel)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
drm/panel: Check for already prepared/enabled in drm_panel
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
2023-07-27 10:16:29 -07:00
|
|
|
int ret;
|
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-07 15:03:29 +01:00
|
|
|
if (!panel)
|
|
|
|
|
return -EINVAL;
|
|
|
|
|
|
drm/panel: Check for already prepared/enabled in drm_panel
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
2023-07-27 10:16:29 -07:00
|
|
|
if (panel->prepared) {
|
|
|
|
|
dev_warn(panel->dev, "Skipping prepare of already prepared panel\n");
|
|
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (panel->funcs && panel->funcs->prepare) {
|
|
|
|
|
ret = panel->funcs->prepare(panel);
|
|
|
|
|
if (ret < 0)
|
|
|
|
|
return ret;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
panel->prepared = true;
|
2019-08-04 22:16:32 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2019-12-07 15:03:29 +01:00
|
|
|
return 0;
|
2019-08-04 22:16:32 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_panel_prepare);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
|
* drm_panel_unprepare - power off a panel
|
|
|
|
|
* @panel: DRM panel
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Calling this function will completely power off a panel (assert the panel's
|
|
|
|
|
* reset, turn off power supplies, ...). After this function has completed, it
|
|
|
|
|
* is usually no longer possible to communicate with the panel until another
|
|
|
|
|
* call to drm_panel_prepare().
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Return: 0 on success or a negative error code on failure.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
int drm_panel_unprepare(struct drm_panel *panel)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
drm/panel: Check for already prepared/enabled in drm_panel
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
2023-07-27 10:16:29 -07:00
|
|
|
int ret;
|
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-07 15:03:29 +01:00
|
|
|
if (!panel)
|
|
|
|
|
return -EINVAL;
|
|
|
|
|
|
drm/panel: Check for already prepared/enabled in drm_panel
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
2023-07-27 10:16:29 -07:00
|
|
|
if (!panel->prepared) {
|
|
|
|
|
dev_warn(panel->dev, "Skipping unprepare of already unprepared panel\n");
|
|
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (panel->funcs && panel->funcs->unprepare) {
|
|
|
|
|
ret = panel->funcs->unprepare(panel);
|
|
|
|
|
if (ret < 0)
|
|
|
|
|
return ret;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
panel->prepared = false;
|
2019-08-04 22:16:32 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2019-12-07 15:03:29 +01:00
|
|
|
return 0;
|
2019-08-04 22:16:32 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_panel_unprepare);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
|
* drm_panel_enable - enable a panel
|
|
|
|
|
* @panel: DRM panel
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Calling this function will cause the panel display drivers to be turned on
|
|
|
|
|
* and the backlight to be enabled. Content will be visible on screen after
|
|
|
|
|
* this call completes.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Return: 0 on success or a negative error code on failure.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
int drm_panel_enable(struct drm_panel *panel)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
2019-12-07 15:03:30 +01:00
|
|
|
int ret;
|
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-07 15:03:29 +01:00
|
|
|
if (!panel)
|
|
|
|
|
return -EINVAL;
|
|
|
|
|
|
drm/panel: Check for already prepared/enabled in drm_panel
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
2023-07-27 10:16:29 -07:00
|
|
|
if (panel->enabled) {
|
|
|
|
|
dev_warn(panel->dev, "Skipping enable of already enabled panel\n");
|
|
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-07 15:03:30 +01:00
|
|
|
if (panel->funcs && panel->funcs->enable) {
|
|
|
|
|
ret = panel->funcs->enable(panel);
|
|
|
|
|
if (ret < 0)
|
|
|
|
|
return ret;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
drm/panel: Check for already prepared/enabled in drm_panel
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
2023-07-27 10:16:29 -07:00
|
|
|
panel->enabled = true;
|
2019-12-07 15:03:30 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ret = backlight_enable(panel->backlight);
|
|
|
|
|
if (ret < 0)
|
|
|
|
|
DRM_DEV_INFO(panel->dev, "failed to enable backlight: %d\n",
|
|
|
|
|
ret);
|
2019-08-04 22:16:32 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2019-12-07 15:03:29 +01:00
|
|
|
return 0;
|
2019-08-04 22:16:32 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_panel_enable);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
|
* drm_panel_disable - disable a panel
|
|
|
|
|
* @panel: DRM panel
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* This will typically turn off the panel's backlight or disable the display
|
|
|
|
|
* drivers. For smart panels it should still be possible to communicate with
|
|
|
|
|
* the integrated circuitry via any command bus after this call.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Return: 0 on success or a negative error code on failure.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
int drm_panel_disable(struct drm_panel *panel)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
2019-12-07 15:03:30 +01:00
|
|
|
int ret;
|
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-07 15:03:29 +01:00
|
|
|
if (!panel)
|
|
|
|
|
return -EINVAL;
|
|
|
|
|
|
drm/panel: Check for already prepared/enabled in drm_panel
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
2023-07-27 10:16:29 -07:00
|
|
|
if (!panel->enabled) {
|
|
|
|
|
dev_warn(panel->dev, "Skipping disable of already disabled panel\n");
|
|
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-07 15:03:30 +01:00
|
|
|
ret = backlight_disable(panel->backlight);
|
|
|
|
|
if (ret < 0)
|
|
|
|
|
DRM_DEV_INFO(panel->dev, "failed to disable backlight: %d\n",
|
|
|
|
|
ret);
|
|
|
|
|
|
drm/panel: Check for already prepared/enabled in drm_panel
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
2023-07-27 10:16:29 -07:00
|
|
|
if (panel->funcs && panel->funcs->disable) {
|
|
|
|
|
ret = panel->funcs->disable(panel);
|
|
|
|
|
if (ret < 0)
|
|
|
|
|
return ret;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
panel->enabled = false;
|
2019-08-04 22:16:32 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2019-12-07 15:03:29 +01:00
|
|
|
return 0;
|
2019-08-04 22:16:32 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_panel_disable);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
|
* drm_panel_get_modes - probe the available display modes of a panel
|
|
|
|
|
* @panel: DRM panel
|
2019-12-07 15:03:34 +01:00
|
|
|
* @connector: DRM connector
|
2019-08-04 22:16:32 +02:00
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* The modes probed from the panel are automatically added to the connector
|
|
|
|
|
* that the panel is attached to.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Return: The number of modes available from the panel on success or a
|
|
|
|
|
* negative error code on failure.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
2019-12-07 15:03:34 +01:00
|
|
|
int drm_panel_get_modes(struct drm_panel *panel,
|
|
|
|
|
struct drm_connector *connector)
|
2019-08-04 22:16:32 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
2019-12-07 15:03:29 +01:00
|
|
|
if (!panel)
|
|
|
|
|
return -EINVAL;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (panel->funcs && panel->funcs->get_modes)
|
2019-12-07 15:03:34 +01:00
|
|
|
return panel->funcs->get_modes(panel, connector);
|
2019-08-04 22:16:32 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2019-12-07 15:03:29 +01:00
|
|
|
return -EOPNOTSUPP;
|
2019-08-04 22:16:32 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_panel_get_modes);
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-08-30 13:36:43 +02:00
|
|
|
#ifdef CONFIG_OF
|
2016-05-06 16:01:37 +02:00
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
|
* of_drm_find_panel - look up a panel using a device tree node
|
|
|
|
|
* @np: device tree node of the panel
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Searches the set of registered panels for one that matches the given device
|
|
|
|
|
* tree node. If a matching panel is found, return a pointer to it.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Return: A pointer to the panel registered for the specified device tree
|
2018-05-09 15:00:39 +02:00
|
|
|
* node or an ERR_PTR() if no panel matching the device tree node can be found.
|
2018-08-15 16:38:28 -04:00
|
|
|
*
|
2018-05-09 15:00:40 +02:00
|
|
|
* Possible error codes returned by this function:
|
2018-08-15 16:38:28 -04:00
|
|
|
*
|
2018-05-09 15:00:40 +02:00
|
|
|
* - EPROBE_DEFER: the panel device has not been probed yet, and the caller
|
|
|
|
|
* should retry later
|
|
|
|
|
* - ENODEV: the device is not available (status != "okay" or "ok")
|
2016-05-06 16:01:37 +02:00
|
|
|
*/
|
2016-11-19 05:28:05 +02:00
|
|
|
struct drm_panel *of_drm_find_panel(const struct device_node *np)
|
2013-08-30 13:36:43 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
struct drm_panel *panel;
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-05-09 15:00:40 +02:00
|
|
|
if (!of_device_is_available(np))
|
|
|
|
|
return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-08-30 13:36:43 +02:00
|
|
|
mutex_lock(&panel_lock);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
list_for_each_entry(panel, &panel_list, list) {
|
|
|
|
|
if (panel->dev->of_node == np) {
|
|
|
|
|
mutex_unlock(&panel_lock);
|
|
|
|
|
return panel;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mutex_unlock(&panel_lock);
|
2018-05-09 15:00:39 +02:00
|
|
|
return ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER);
|
2013-08-30 13:36:43 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL(of_drm_find_panel);
|
2020-08-14 00:56:06 +03:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
|
* of_drm_get_panel_orientation - look up the orientation of the panel through
|
|
|
|
|
* the "rotation" binding from a device tree node
|
|
|
|
|
* @np: device tree node of the panel
|
|
|
|
|
* @orientation: orientation enum to be filled in
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Looks up the rotation of a panel in the device tree. The orientation of the
|
|
|
|
|
* panel is expressed as a property name "rotation" in the device tree. The
|
|
|
|
|
* rotation in the device tree is counter clockwise.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Return: 0 when a valid rotation value (0, 90, 180, or 270) is read or the
|
|
|
|
|
* rotation property doesn't exist. Return a negative error code on failure.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
int of_drm_get_panel_orientation(const struct device_node *np,
|
|
|
|
|
enum drm_panel_orientation *orientation)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
int rotation, ret;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "rotation", &rotation);
|
|
|
|
|
if (ret == -EINVAL) {
|
|
|
|
|
/* Don't return an error if there's no rotation property. */
|
|
|
|
|
*orientation = DRM_MODE_PANEL_ORIENTATION_UNKNOWN;
|
|
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (ret < 0)
|
|
|
|
|
return ret;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (rotation == 0)
|
|
|
|
|
*orientation = DRM_MODE_PANEL_ORIENTATION_NORMAL;
|
|
|
|
|
else if (rotation == 90)
|
|
|
|
|
*orientation = DRM_MODE_PANEL_ORIENTATION_RIGHT_UP;
|
|
|
|
|
else if (rotation == 180)
|
|
|
|
|
*orientation = DRM_MODE_PANEL_ORIENTATION_BOTTOM_UP;
|
|
|
|
|
else if (rotation == 270)
|
|
|
|
|
*orientation = DRM_MODE_PANEL_ORIENTATION_LEFT_UP;
|
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
|
return -EINVAL;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL(of_drm_get_panel_orientation);
|
2013-08-30 13:36:43 +02:00
|
|
|
#endif
|
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-17 16:07:21 +02:00
|
|
|
#if IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_BACKLIGHT_CLASS_DEVICE)
|
2019-12-07 15:03:30 +01:00
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
|
* drm_panel_of_backlight - use backlight device node for backlight
|
|
|
|
|
* @panel: DRM panel
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Use this function to enable backlight handling if your panel
|
|
|
|
|
* uses device tree and has a backlight phandle.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* When the panel is enabled backlight will be enabled after a
|
|
|
|
|
* successful call to &drm_panel_funcs.enable()
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* When the panel is disabled backlight will be disabled before the
|
|
|
|
|
* call to &drm_panel_funcs.disable().
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* A typical implementation for a panel driver supporting device tree
|
|
|
|
|
* will call this function at probe time. Backlight will then be handled
|
|
|
|
|
* transparently without requiring any intervention from the driver.
|
|
|
|
|
* drm_panel_of_backlight() must be called after the call to drm_panel_init().
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Return: 0 on success or a negative error code on failure.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
int drm_panel_of_backlight(struct drm_panel *panel)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
struct backlight_device *backlight;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (!panel || !panel->dev)
|
|
|
|
|
return -EINVAL;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
backlight = devm_of_find_backlight(panel->dev);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (IS_ERR(backlight))
|
|
|
|
|
return PTR_ERR(backlight);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
panel->backlight = backlight;
|
|
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_panel_of_backlight);
|
|
|
|
|
#endif
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-08-30 13:36:43 +02:00
|
|
|
MODULE_AUTHOR("Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>");
|
|
|
|
|
MODULE_DESCRIPTION("DRM panel infrastructure");
|
|
|
|
|
MODULE_LICENSE("GPL and additional rights");
|