Hi,
On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 2:29 AM Pin-yen Lin <treapking@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Douglas,
>
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 5:56 AM Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Unlike what is claimed in commit f5aa7d46b0ee ("drm/bridge:
> > parade-ps8640: Provide wait_hpd_asserted() in struct drm_dp_aux"), if
> > someone manually tries to do an AUX transfer (like via `i2cdump ${bus}
> > 0x50 i`) while the panel is off we don't just get a simple transfer
> > error. Instead, the whole ps8640 gets thrown for a loop and goes into
> > a bad state.
> >
> > Let's put the function to wait for the HPD (and the magical 50 ms
> > after first reset) back in when we're doing an AUX transfer. This
> > shouldn't actually make things much slower (assuming the panel is on)
> > because we should immediately poll and see the HPD high. Mostly this
> > is just an extra i2c transfer to the bridge.
> >
> > Fixes: f5aa7d46b0ee ("drm/bridge: parade-ps8640: Provide wait_hpd_asserted() in struct drm_dp_aux")
> > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >
> > drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/parade-ps8640.c | 5 +++++
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/parade-ps8640.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/parade-ps8640.c
> > index 541e4f5afc4c..fb5e9ae9ad81 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/parade-ps8640.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/parade-ps8640.c
> > @@ -346,6 +346,11 @@ static ssize_t ps8640_aux_transfer(struct drm_dp_aux *aux,
> > int ret;
> >
> > pm_runtime_get_sync(dev);
> > + ret = _ps8640_wait_hpd_asserted(ps_bridge, 200 * 1000);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + pm_runtime_put_sync_suspend(dev);
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> > ret = ps8640_aux_transfer_msg(aux, msg);
> > pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(dev);
> > pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(dev);
> > --
> > 2.43.0.472.g3155946c3a-goog
> >
>
> I think commit 9294914dd550 ("drm/bridge: parade-ps8640: Link device
> to ensure suspend/resume order") is trying to address the same
> problem, but we see this issue here because the device link is missing
> DL_FLAG_PM_RUNTIME. I prefer to add DL_FLAG_PM_RUNTIME here so we
> don't need to add a _ps8640_wait_hpd_asserted() after every
> pm_runtime_get_*() call.
I disagree. We've had several discussions on the lists about this
topic before, though since I'm technically on vacation right now I'm
not going to go look them up. In general "pm_runtime" is not
sufficient for powering up DRM components. While DRM components can
use pm_runtime themselves (as we are doing here), powering up another
DRM component by grabbing a pm_runtime reference isn't right. There is
a reason for the complexity of the DRM prepare/enable and all the
current debates about the right order to call components in prepare()
just demonstrates further that a simple pm_runtime reference isn't
enough.
It can be noted that, with ${SUBJECT} patch we _aren't_ powering up
the panel. I actually tested two cases on sc7180-lazor. In one case I
just closed the lid, which powered off the panel, but the touchscreen
kept the panel power rail on. In this case with my patch I could still
read the panel EDID. I then hacked the touchscreen off. Now when I
closed the lid I'd get a timeout. This is different than if we tried
to get a pm_runtime reference to the panel.
> As a side note, I've verified both this patch and DL_FLAG_PM_RUNTIME
> in our downstream v5.15 kernel and panel-edp driver. Both of them
> successfully wait for HPD asserted when the timeout used to happen,
> but the panel is black in that situation. That being said, this patch
> still brings us to a better state. Originally, panel_edp_resume()
> would return an error when the timeout occurs, so the panel-edp driver
> is stuck at an unexpected state. With this patch or
> DL_FLAG_PM_RUNTIME, the runtime PM callbacks won't fail and a system
> suspend/resume brings the panel back.
OK. I'm going to shut off email for real this time while I enjoy some
time off. Hopefully the above convinces you. Otherwise I guess we can
continue to debate in mid-January.
-Doug
