[PATCH v5] drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: Add HPD for DisplayPort connector type

[Jayesh Choudhary]

Hello Doug,

On 23/06/25 21:00, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 9:24 AM Doug Anderson <dianders at chromium.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 2:32 AM Jayesh Choudhary <j-choudhary at ti.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> @@ -1220,6 +1231,27 @@ static void ti_sn65dsi86_debugfs_init(struct drm_bridge *bridge, struct dentry *
>>>          debugfs_create_file("status", 0600, debugfs, pdata, &status_fops);
>>>   }
>>>
>>> +static void ti_sn_bridge_hpd_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge)
>>> +{
>>> +       struct ti_sn65dsi86 *pdata = bridge_to_ti_sn65dsi86(bridge);
>>> +
>>> +       /*
>>> +        * Device needs to be powered on before reading the HPD state
>>> +        * for reliable hpd detection in ti_sn_bridge_detect() due to
>>> +        * the high debounce time.
>>> +        */
>>> +
>>> +       pm_runtime_get_sync(pdata->dev);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static void ti_sn_bridge_hpd_disable(struct drm_bridge *bridge)
>>> +{
>>> +       struct ti_sn65dsi86 *pdata = bridge_to_ti_sn65dsi86(bridge);
>>> +
>>> +       pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(pdata->dev);
>>> +       pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(pdata->dev);
>>
>> nit: you don't need the pm_runtime_mark_last_busy() here, do you? Just
>> call pm_runtime_put_autosuspend().
>>
>> Aside from the nit, this looks reasonable to me now.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders at chromium.org>
> 
> What's the plan here? I can just remove the
> `pm_runtime_mark_last_busy()` and land it if people are on board with
> that (and if it works fine for Jayesh). If Jayesh wants to post a v6
> to make it more legit, I can land that. I probably won't land anything
> myself past Wednesday (California time) since I'm about to go offline
> for 2 weeks and wouldn't want to land and bolt.
> 

Posted v6 with this dropped and the tags picked up:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250624044835.165708-1-j-choudhary@ti.com/

Thanks and Warm Regards,
Jayesh


> -Doug