[PATCH v9 1/4] drm/msm/dp: Add eDP support via aux_bus

Stephen Boyd swboyd at chromium.org
Mon Apr 25 20:26:09 UTC 2022


Quoting Sankeerth Billakanti (QUIC) (2022-04-25 02:39:43)
> Hi Stephen,
>
> >Quoting Sankeerth Billakanti (2022-04-22 02:11:03)
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c
> >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c
> >> index d7a19d6..055681a 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c
> >
> >Some nitpicks
> >
> >Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <swboyd at chromium.org>
> >
> >> @@ -1508,7 +1509,8 @@ void msm_dp_irq_postinstall(struct msm_dp
> >> *dp_display)
> >>
> >>         dp_hpd_event_setup(dp);
> >>
> >> -       dp_add_event(dp, EV_HPD_INIT_SETUP, 0, 100);
> >> +       if (!dp_display->is_edp)
> >> +               dp_add_event(dp, EV_HPD_INIT_SETUP, 0, 100);
> >
> >Did it turn out that in fact DP isn't ready still to setup even after delaying the
> >irq?
> >
>
> The host_init, config_hpd, phy_init and enable_irq are happening in modeset_init already for eDP.
> So, I am not scheduling the EV_HPD_INIT_SETUP event for eDP. I am not modifying the delay for DP.

Cool. That didn't answer my question though. Why does DP still need the
delay? I thought recent changes made it unnecessary.


More information about the dri-devel mailing list