[PATCH v1 2/3] drm/msm/dp: decoupling dp->id out of dp controller_id at scxxxx_dp_cfg table

[Kuogee Hsieh]

On 6/24/2022 6:15 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Kuogee Hsieh (2022-06-24 18:02:50)
>> On 6/24/2022 5:46 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 at 03:28, Dmitry Baryshkov
>>> <dmitry.baryshkov at linaro.org> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 at 03:23, Kuogee Hsieh <quic_khsieh at quicinc.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 6/24/2022 5:21 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 at 03:19, Kuogee Hsieh <quic_khsieh at quicinc.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> How can I have eDP call dpu_encoder_init() before DP calls with
>>>>>>> _dpu_kms_initialize_displayport()?
>>>>>> Why do you want to do it? They are two different encoders.
>>>>> eDP is primary display which in normal case should be bring up first if
>>>>> DP is also presented.
>>>> I do not like the concept of primary display. It is the user, who must
>>>> decide which display is primary to him. I have seen people using just
>>>> external monitors and ignoring built-in eDP completely.from
>>>> Also, why does the bring up order matters here? What do you gain by
>>>> bringing up eDP before the DP?
>>> I should probably rephrase my question to be more clear. How does
>>> changing the order of DP vs eDP bringup help you 'to fix screen
>>> corruption'.
>> it did fix the primary display correction issue if edp go first and i do
>> not know the root cause yet.
>>
>> We are still investigating it.
>>
>> However I do think currently msm_dp_config sc7280_dp_cfg has issues need
>> be addressed.
>>
> What issues exist with sc7280_dp_cfg? It looks correct to me.


If we are going to bring up a new chipset with edp as primary only, i am 
not sure the below configuration will work?

> static const struct msm_dp_config sc7280_dp_cfg = {
>          .descs = (const struct msm_dp_desc[]) {
>                  [MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_1] = { .io_start = 0x0aea0000, .connector_type = DRM_MODE_CONNECTOR_eDP, .wide_bus_en = true },
>          },
>          .num_descs = 1,
> };