Il 03/12/21 14:14, Dmitry Baryshkov ha scritto:
On 03/12/2021 13:43, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
Il 01/12/21 21:20, Dmitry Baryshkov ha scritto:
Since commit 8f59ee9a570c ("drm/msm/dsi: Adjust probe order"), the
DSI host gets initialized earlier, but this caused unability to probe
the entire stack of components because they all depend on interrupts
coming from the main `mdss` node (mdp5, or dpu1).
To fix this issue, move mdss device initialization (which include irq
domain setup) to msm_mdev_probe() time, as to make sure that the
interrupt controller is available before dsi and/or other components try
to initialize, finally satisfying the dependency.
Fixes: 8f59ee9a570c ("drm/msm/dsi: Adjust probe order")
Co-Developed-By: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
<angelogioacchino.delregno@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
When checking your patch, I noticed that IRQ domain is created before
respective MDSS clocks are enabled. This does not look like causing any
issues at this time, but it did not look good. So I started moving
clocks parsing to early_init() callbacks. And at some point it looked
like we can drop the init()/destroy() callbacks in favour of
early_init() and remove(). Which promted me to move init()/destroy() in
place of early_init()/remove() with few minor fixes here and there.
Hey Dmitry,
I wanted to make the least amount of changes to Rob's logic... I know that
the clocks aren't up before registering the domain, but my logic was implying
that if the handlers aren't registered, then there's no interrupt coming, hence
no risk of getting issues. Same if the hardware is down, you can't get any
interrupt, because it can't generate any (but if bootloader leaves it up.. eh.)
We can get spurious interrupts for any reason, which puts us at risk of peeking
into unpowered registers. So, while your approach was working, it did not seem
fully correct.
Yeah, that's right and I totally agree.
I recognize that such approach is "fragile enough", lastly, I agree with this
patch which is, in the end, something that is in the middle between my first
and last approach.
I've tested this one on trogdor-lazor-limozeen and seems to be working in an
analogous way to my v2/v3, so on my side it's validated.
Let's go for this one!
How do we proceeed now? Are you sending a new series with the new patches, or
should I?
I'll run a few more tests and then I'll probably include both patches into the next
series to be sent to Rob.
That's perfect!
Also, I don't think this is relevant, since I'm in co-dev, but in case it is:
Tested-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
P.S.: Sorry for the 1-day delay, got busy with other tasks!
No problem, it was just single day, no worries.
Alright, thank you! :D
