Hi,
On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 11:34 PM Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Okay, thanks for the detailed explanation. Then, let's go with the
approach in this patch. So,
Tested-by: Pin-yen Lin <treapking@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Pin-yen Lin <treapking@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> > 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
Happy holiday!
Pin-yen
