[PATCH 2/4] drm: Add support for ARM's HDLCD controller.

[Liviu Dudau]

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 05:41:59PM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 17 August 2015 at 16:15, Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau at arm.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 09:56:33AM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote:
> >> Hi Liviu,
> >
> > Hi Emil,
> >
> >>
> >> On 5 August 2015 at 15:28, Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau at arm.com> wrote:
> >> > The HDLCD controller is a display controller that supports resolutions
> >> > up to 4096x4096 pixels. It is present on various development boards
> >> > produced by ARM Ltd and emulated by the latest Fast Models from the
> >> > company.
> >> >
> >> I believe there is a unofficial requirement(?) for new drm drivers to
> >> use atomic modesetting. Not 100% sure on this one though. The
> >> following drivers: tegra, msm, rcar-du, i915, and Daniel's blog [1]
> >> [2] cat provide some information on the topic.
> >
> > I am also interested to know if this is a requirement or not.
> > Thanks for the pointers, I will review them again to see if I did miss
> > anything. I remember reading them at the beginning of the year but probably
> > the Christmas haze did not clear enough when I did.
> >
> There was a similar question from the freescale dcu people [1]. I
> believe that the answer still applies.
> 
> [1] http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2015-March/078689.html
> 
> >>
> >> The driver seems to has has a bit of dead code guarded by
> >> HDLCD_*_UNDERRUN. Perhaps these macros should become build or runtime
> >> switch(es) ?
> >
> > There is a comment in hdlcd_drv.h explaining what HDLCD_SHOW_UNDERRUN can
> > be used for. As for HDLCD_COUNT_BUFFERUNDERRUNS, you are right, it's dead
> > code from the earlier debugging code that got removed before submission.
> > I will correct that.
> >
> I haven't seen other drm drivers follow the "set a macro that is
> documented in a header and rebuild" approach. Devs either add a CONFIG
> option for it, or expose it as a module parameter. IIRC the nouveau
> driver does even more - it enables the underrun machinery
> unconditionally.

Adding a module parameter probably makes more sense, I will look into that.

> 
> >>
> >> Most DRM drivers do not threat dma, bus_error, vsync and/or underrun
> >> interrupts as debug functionality. They are of limited use in this
> >> driver, presently, yet the CONFIG_DEBUG_FS guard seems a bit strange
> >> imho.
> >
> > The HDLCD device has only 1 interrupt that can fire and there is no other
> > way to show the reason for the interrupt in the driver. It was useful when
> > debugging underruns and/or vsync issues so I thought it might be useful
> > to keep around. Putting it the other way: if you are going to use this device
> > and the image is not completely rendered I would not be able to give you
> > support to figure out what went wrong without this debugging information.
> > With this in place I can tell the difference between a busy system vs one
> > where the interrupt latency is large.
> >
> Out of curiosity - are there any implications/side-effects from having
> these enabled ?

Having the counters counting the interrupts should not affect the latency and
having the default colour red means parts of the screen will flash with that
colour when the data that was supposed to be there could not be fetched in
time (underrun). Yes, probably not something casual users of the ARM boards
will complain about and a highly visible effect when you have bandwidth
starvation issues.

Best regards,
Liviu

> 
> Thanks,
> Emil
> 

-- 
====================
| I would like to |
| fix the world,  |
| but they're not |
| giving me the   |
 \ source code!  /
  ---------------
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯