On Mon, 2022-08-08 at 13:46 +0800, CK Hu wrote:
> Hi, Bo-Chen:
>
> On Fri, 2022-08-05 at 18:14 +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>
> > Tested-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <
> > angelogioacchino.delregno@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <
> > angelogioacchino.delregno@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
>
> [snip]
>
> > +
> > +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 & RGS_IRQ_STATUS_TRANSMITTER))
> > + return IRQ_HANDLED;
>
> If one of MTK_DP_HPD_INTERRUPT, MTK_DP_HPD_CONNECT,
> MTK_DP_HPD_DISCONNECT exist, does it imply RGS_IRQ_STATUS_TRANSMITTER
> exist? If so, I think this checking is redundant because we could
> directly check MTK_DP_HPD_INTERRUPT, MTK_DP_HPD_CONNECT,
> MTK_DP_HPD_DISCONNECT.
>
Hello CK,
After checking with Jitao, we can remove this check and use
mtk_dp_swirq_get_clear|mtk_dp_hwirq_get_clear directly.
> > +
> > + 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)
> > + train_info->hpd_inerrupt = true;
>
> train_info->hpd_inerrupt is useless, so drop it.
>
> > +
> > + if (!(irq_status & MTK_DP_HPD_CONNECT ||
> > + irq_status & MTK_DP_HPD_DISCONNECT))
> > + return IRQ_WAKE_THREAD;
>
> this could be changed to
>
> if (irq_status == MTK_DP_HPD_INTERRUPT)
> return IRQ_WAKE_THREAD;
>
> But I find one problem. If irq_status == MTK_DP_HPD_INTERRUPT |
> MTK_DP_HPD_CONNECT, the thread would not be waked up. Is this what
> you
> want?
>
> Regards,
> CK
>
It is possible we will encounter (irq_status & MTK_DP_HPD_CONNECT) &&
(irq_status & MTK_DP_HPD_INTERRUPT)
So I will modify like this:
if (!(irq_status & MTK_DP_HPD_CONNECT ||
irq_status & MTK_DP_HPD_DISCONNECT))
return IRQ_WAKE_THREAD;
xxxxxx
if (irq_status & MTK_DP_HPD_INTERRUPT &&
irq_status & MTK_DP_HPD_CONNECT)
return IRQ_WAKE_THREAD;
return IRQ_HANDLED;
BRs,
Bo-Chen
> > +
> > + 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;
> > +}
> > +
>
>
