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

[Kuogee Hsieh]

On 6/27/2022 8:38 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 at 18:33, Kuogee Hsieh <quic_khsieh at quicinc.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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,
>>> };
> As I wrote in one of the comments, there is an issue with num_descs
> being not obvious (in your example it should be 2, not 1). I thought
> about dropping it and looping until the MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_COUNT, but
> this would result in other kinds of hard-to-catch issues. Let me muse
> about it.

Thanks for consideration.