[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 6/7] drm/i915/dsi: Replace poking of CHV GPIOs behind the driver's back

[Ville Syrjälä]

On Wed, Nov 01, 2023 at 11:20:23AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 11/1/23 10:32, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 10:15:52PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> >> On 10/31/23 17:07, Hans de Goede wrote:
> >>> On 10/24/23 18:11, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 06:57:38PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> >>> As for the CHT support, I have not added that to my tree yet, I would
> >>> prefer to directly test the correct/fixed patch.
> >>
> >> And I hit the "jackpot" on the first device I tried and the code needed
> >> some fixing to actually work, so here is something to fold into v3 to
> >> fix things:
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > 
> > But let me first send current v3 as it quite differs to v2 in the sense
> > of how I do instantiate GPIO lookup tables.
> 
> The problem is there already is a GPIO lookup table registered for
> the "0000:00:02.0" device by intel_dsi_vbt_gpio_init() and there can
> be only be one GPIO lookup table per device. So no matter how you
> instantiate GPIO lookup tables it will not work.
> 
> The solution that I chose is to not instantiate a GPIO lookup table
> at all and instead to extend the existing table with an extra entry.
> 
> Although thinking more about it I must admit that this is racy.
> 
> So a better idea would be to unregister the GPIO lookup
> table registered by intel_dsi_vbt_gpio_init() after getting
> the GPIOs there, that would allow instantiating a new one
> from soc_exec_opaque_gpio() as it currently does and that
> would be race free.

The proper solution would likely be be to pre-parse the sequences
to determine which GPIOs are actually needed. That would also get
rid of the bxt_gpio_table[] eyesore.

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel