Hi,
On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 10:54 AM Abhinav Kumar
<quic_abhinavk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 1/13/2023 3:56 PM, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> > In commit 7d8e9a90509f ("drm/msm/dsi: move DSI host powerup to modeset
> > time"), we moved powering up DSI hosts to modeset time. This wasn't
> > because it was an elegant design, but there were no better options.
> >
> > That commit actually ended up breaking ps8640, and thus was born
> > commit ec7981e6c614 ("drm/msm/dsi: don't powerup at modeset time for
> > parade-ps8640") as a temporary hack to un-break ps8640 by moving it to
> > the old way of doing things. It turns out that ps8640 _really_ doesn't
> > like its pre_enable() function to be called after
> > dsi_mgr_bridge_power_on(). Specifically (from experimentation, not
> > because I have any inside knowledge), it looks like the assertion of
> > "RST#" in the ps8640 runtime resume handler seems like it's not
> > allowed to happen after dsi_mgr_bridge_power_on()
> >
> > Recently, Dave Stevenson's series landed allowing bridges some control
> > over pre_enable ordering. The meaty commit for our purposes is commit
> > 4fb912e5e190 ("drm/bridge: Introduce pre_enable_prev_first to alter
> > bridge init order"). As documented by that series, if a bridge doesn't
> > set "pre_enable_prev_first" then we should use the old ordering.
> >
> > Now that we have the commit ("drm/bridge: tc358762: Set
> > pre_enable_prev_first") we can go back to the old ordering, which also
> > allows us to remove the ps8640 special case.
> >
> > One last note is that even without reverting commit 7d8e9a90509f
> > ("drm/msm/dsi: move DSI host powerup to modeset time"), if you _just_
> > revert the ps8640 special case and try it out then it doesn't seem to
> > fail anymore. I spent time bisecting / debugging this and it turns out
> > to be mostly luck, so we still want this patch to make sure it's
> > solid. Specifically the reason it sorta works these days is because
> > we implemented wait_hpd_asserted() in ps8640 now, plus the magic of
> > "pm_runtime" autosuspend. The fact that we have wait_hpd_asserted()
> > implemented means that we actually power the bridge chip up just a wee
> > bit earlier and then the bridge happens to stay on because of
> > autosuspend and thus ends up powered before dsi_mgr_bridge_power_on().
> >
> > Cc: Dave Stevenson <dave.stevenson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Why is the patch title showing 2/2? I am not seeing any 1/2 here.
Is it a problem with your mail filters? You can see it at:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230113155547.RFT.1.I723a3761d57ea60c5dd754c144aed6c3b2ea6f5a@changeid/
You are listed on the "To:" line. ;-)
> > @@ -349,7 +297,16 @@ static void dsi_mgr_bridge_pre_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge)
> > host1_en_fail:
> > msm_dsi_host_disable(host);
> > host_en_fail:
> > -
> > + msm_dsi_host_disable_irq(host);
> > + if (is_bonded_dsi && msm_dsi1) {
> > + msm_dsi_host_disable_irq(msm_dsi1->host);
> > + msm_dsi_host_power_off(msm_dsi1->host);
> > + }
>
> In addition to Dmitry's comment of keeping the bridge_power_on() name,
>
> this part of the change seems independent of the patch. This was missing
> cleanup for DSI1 (esp the disable_irq part).
>
> So can we break it up into two parts.
>
> 1) Add missing cleanup for DSI1
> 2) Just get rid of dsi_mgr_power_on_early() and keep the call
> dsi_mgr_bridge_power_on() in dsi_mgr_bridge_pre_enable() unconditionally.
I didn't intentionally fix any bug in my patch--I just reverted it all
back to how it was before. ;-)
So looking more closely, it looks like overall the current code (AKA
what's landed today and without ${SUBJECT} patch) doesn't really
handle errors with dsi_mgr_bridge_power_on() very well. The normal
case of calling dsi_mgr_bridge_power_on() from modeset is totally
ignored because modeset returns no error. Then the special workaround
for ps8640 just followed the same pattern and assumed that
dsi_mgr_bridge_power_on() succeeded. It also assumed that if the rest
of dsi_mgr_bridge_pre_enable() failed that it didn't need to undo
dsi_mgr_bridge_power_on() because it wouldn't have undone it in the
modeset case.
While the current code isn't the best, it's not like the pre_enable()
call could have returned errors anyway. It probably wasn't truly the
end of the world to behave the way it did.
With all that, I guess my plan would be to do as Dmitry says and just
always call dsi_mgr_bridge_power_on() from
dsi_mgr_bridge_pre_enable(). In the first patch I'll just do that and
remove the ps8640 workaround. Then I can add a 2nd patch that improves
the error handling by having dsi_mgr_bridge_power_on() return an error
code and then adding a matching dsi_mgr_bridge_power_off() that will
undo it and include the extra cleanup.
-Doug
