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@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>>> @@ -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. > >I'd say that if it is not necessary, it should be changed in the separate commit. >The question is valid nevertheless. > Yes, that is right. The delay is unnecessary with the recent changes. Like Dmitry rightly suggested, we will remove the delay in a separate commit. > >-- >With best wishes >Dmitry
