Setting aside for now the other problems that Jason Bassford has raised in the comments - I'll return to them shortly - this question is specifically about the use of the past simple (also known as the preterite) in a when clause. This is different from its use for the principal verb of a sentence. It is to do with how we use tenses to locate points in time, and is somewhat sensitive to the nature of the main clause of the sentence.
When I watch TV, I feel happy.
This is, both in the main clause and the when clause, the simple present. It is making a general statement. It is locating the two in the same point in time. When the TV watching is happening, the speaker is feeling happy. The implication is that there's a causal relationship - watching TV leads to feeling happy.
When I watched TV, I felt happy.
This is the same thing, but with the preterite. However, it could mean two different things. It either places the exact statement in the past, to refer to one or more specific points in time when the speaker was watching TV and feeling happy (with implied causation), or to refer to a broader time in the past when they watched TV in general (not all the time) and were happy in general (not necessarily all the time). It's a subtle difference, and really has to be determined from context if it's not properly explained.
When I have watched TV, I feel happy.
The main clause is making a general statement and it is qualified with the when clause. It is saying that, generally speaking, watching TV leaves them feeling happy for a while afterwards.
When I have watched TV, I have felt happy.
A similar statement, but without generalising it to now or the near future. It is simply saying that, in the past, there were occasions where the speaker watched TV and felt happy. It might have been during watching, or it might have lasted after watching.
When I have watched TV, I felt happy.
A more unusual combination. I struggle to think of a semantically valid situation for this, but I hesitate to write it off.
When I had watched TV, I felt happy.
This is talking entirely about the past. It seems most natural to me to use it when discussing a specific instance - narrating particular events. However, it could also be used for general statements, as in have/have above, but it makes it clear that happiness exists after watching TV, not just during.
When I had watched TV, I have felt happy.
When I had watched TV, I feel happy.
I'm pretty sure these are just always wrong. Don't use them.
So, let's look at your example:
when you brought my breakfast before I start walking in the morning, I felt happy
Preterite and preterite. Either some specific instance(s) in the past are referred to, or it's referring to a time period in the past when it was generally true that the person being spoken to brought the speaker breakfast, and that they were generally happy (with an implied causative relationship).
when you bring my breakfast before I start walking in the morning, I feel happy
Simple present and simple present. It's a general statement that happiness occurs alongside the bringing of breakfast, with implied causation.
when you have brought my breakfast before I start walking in the morning, I feel happy
A general statement that the speaker feels happy after having their breakfast brought to them.
And so on, and so forth. Hopefully that's helpful to you.
Now, the one problem that's left is in your example, you have a present simple in the middle of it all that jars if the other verbs are preterite. It doesn't necessarily have a problem with other combinations - I expect it does with some, but even two lots of present perfect, one on each side, is fine with the present simple. If you are using the two lots of preterite, you should probably make the other verb preterite, too.