On 6/24/2022 5:23 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
Quoting Stephen Boyd (2022-06-24 17:11:01)
Quoting Abhinav Kumar (2022-06-24 17:03:37)
So let me try to explain this as this is what i understood from the
patch and how kuogee explained me.
The ordering of the array still matters here and thats what he is trying
to address with the second change.
The order of the array should not matter. That's the problem.
It seems like somewhere else the order of the array matters, presumably
while setting up encoders?
So as per him, he tried to swap the order of entries like below and that
did not work and that is incorrect behavior because he still retained
the MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_x field for the table like below:
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c
index dcd80c8a794c..7816e82452ca 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c
@@ -140,8 +140,8 @@ static const struct msm_dp_config sc7180_dp_cfg = {
static const struct msm_dp_config sc7280_dp_cfg = {
.descs = (const struct msm_dp_desc[]) {
- [MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_0] = { .io_start = 0x0ae90000,
.connector_type = DRM_MODE_CONNECTOR_DisplayPort, .wide_bus_en = true },
[MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_1] = { .io_start = 0x0aea0000,
.connector_type = DRM_MODE_CONNECTOR_eDP, .wide_bus_en = true },
+ [MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_0] = { .io_start = 0x0ae90000,
.connector_type = DRM_MODE_CONNECTOR_DisplayPort, .wide_bus_en = true },
},
.num_descs = 2,
};
The reason order is important is because in this function below, even
though it matches the address to find which one to use it loops through
the array and so the value of *id will change depending on which one is
located where.
static const struct msm_dp_desc *dp_display_get_desc(struct
platform_device *pdev,
unsigned int *id)
Thanks! We should fix this function to not overwrite the id.
Ah nevermind. I mixed up dp->id and h_tile_instance thinking one was
overwriting the other but that doesn't make any sense.
Yes, I also misunderstood one point.
Even if we re-order like above, we are still retaining the index
correctly so that will still work.
I checked with kuogee again now, he mentioned he needs this only for
patch 3.
He is not sure of the root-cause of why turning ON the first display
fixes the issue . I think that needs to be debugged correctly to answers
questions posted by you / Dmitry. Lets hold on these patches till we
have the answers.
