On Tue, 2022-08-02 at 13:09 +0800, CK Hu wrote:
> Hi, Bo-Chen:
>
> On Wed, 2022-07-27 at 12:50 +0800, Bo-Chen Chen wrote:
> > From: Markus Schneider-Pargmann <msp@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > This patch adds a embedded displayport driver for the MediaTek
> > mt8195
> > SoC.
> >
> > It supports the MT8195, the embedded DisplayPort units. It offers
> > DisplayPort 1.4 with up to 4 lanes.
> >
> > The driver creates a child device for the phy. The child device
> > will
> > never exist without the parent being active. As they are sharing a
> > register range, the parent passes a regmap pointer to the child so
> > that
> > both can work with the same register range. The phy driver sets
> > device
> > data that is read by the parent to get the phy device that can be
> > used
> > to control the phy properties.
> >
> > This driver is based on an initial version by
> > Jitao shi <jitao.shi@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Markus Schneider-Pargmann <msp@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Guillaume Ranquet <granquet@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Bo-Chen Chen <rex-bc.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
>
> [snip]
>
> > +
> > +static irqreturn_t mtk_dp_hpd_event_thread(int hpd, void *dev)
> > +{
> > + struct mtk_dp *mtk_dp = dev;
> > +
> > + if (mtk_dp->train_info.hpd_inerrupt) {
>
> When the thread is running, mtk_dp->train_info.hpd_inerrupt would be
> true. So this checking is redundant.
>
Hello CK,
ok, I will remove it.
> > + dev_dbg(mtk_dp->dev, "MTK_DP_HPD_INTERRUPT\n");
> > + mtk_dp->train_info.hpd_inerrupt = false;
> > + mtk_dp_hpd_sink_event(mtk_dp);
> > + }
> > +
> > + return IRQ_HANDLED;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static irqreturn_t mtk_dp_hpd_event(int hpd, void *dev)
> > +{
> > + struct mtk_dp *mtk_dp = dev;
> > + struct mtk_dp_train_info *train_info = &mtk_dp->train_info;
> > + u32 irq_status;
> > +
> > + irq_status = mtk_dp_read(mtk_dp, MTK_DP_TOP_IRQ_STATUS);
> > +
> > + if (!irq_status)
> > + return IRQ_HANDLED;
> > +
> > + if (irq_status & RGS_IRQ_STATUS_TRANSMITTER) {
>
> Combine this if-checking with previous if-checking, it would be:
>
> if (!(irq_status & RGS_IRQ_STATUS_TRANSMITTER))
> return IRQ_HANDLED;
>
ok.
> > + irq_status = mtk_dp_swirq_get_clear(mtk_dp) |
> > + mtk_dp_hwirq_get_clear(mtk_dp);
> > +
> > + if (!irq_status)
> > + return IRQ_HANDLED;
> > +
> > + if (irq_status & MTK_DP_HPD_INTERRUPT)
>
> Does this interrupt MTK_DP_HPD_INTERRUPT have any relation with
> MTK_DP_HPD_CONNECT and MTK_DP_HPD_CONNECT? From the naming, I guess
> that when MTK_DP_HPD_CONNECT happen, MTK_DP_HPD_INTERRUPT would also
> happen. Either for MTK_DP_HPD_DISCONNECT. When would
> MTK_DP_HPD_INTERRUPT happen but MTK_DP_HPD_CONNECT or
> MTK_DP_HPD_DISCONNECT does not happen.
>
There is no relation for these status. They are individual.
MTK_DP_HPD_INTERRUPT is for interrupt from sink device. After receiving
this source device should do some actions.
MTK_DP_HPD_CONNECT and MTK_DP_HPD_DISCONNECT are for HPD status.
BRs,
Bo-Chen
> Regards,
> CK
>
> > + train_info->hpd_inerrupt = true;
> > +
> > + if (!(irq_status & MTK_DP_HPD_CONNECT ||
> > + irq_status & MTK_DP_HPD_DISCONNECT))
> > + return IRQ_WAKE_THREAD;
> > +
> > + if (!!(mtk_dp_read(mtk_dp, MTK_DP_TRANS_P0_3414) &
> > + HPD_DB_DP_TRANS_P0_MASK))
> > + train_info->cable_plugged_in = true;
> > + else
> > + train_info->cable_plugged_in = false;
> > +
> > + mtk_dp_update_bits(mtk_dp, MTK_DP_TOP_PWR_STATE,
> > + DP_PWR_STATE_BANDGAP_TPLL_LANE,
> > + DP_PWR_STATE_MASK);
> > + }
> > +
> > + return IRQ_HANDLED;
> > +}
> > +
>
>
