On Mon, 20 May 2024 at 14:48, Sui Jingfeng <sui.jingfeng@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> On 5/20/24 19:13, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 May 2024 at 14:11, Sui Jingfeng <sui.jingfeng@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 5/20/24 06:11, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >>> On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 06:10:06PM +0800, Liu Ying wrote:
> >>>> Commit f3d9683346d6 ("drm/bridge: adv7511: Allow IRQ to share GPIO pins")
> >>>> fails to consider the case where adv7511->i2c_main->irq is zero, i.e.,
> >>>> no interrupt requested at all.
> >>>>
> >>>> Without interrupt, adv7511_wait_for_edid() could return -EIO sometimes,
> >>>> because it polls adv7511->edid_read flag by calling adv7511_irq_process()
> >>>> a few times, but adv7511_irq_process() happens to refuse to handle
> >>>> interrupt by returning -ENODATA. Hence, EDID retrieval fails randomly.
> >>>>
> >>>> Fix the issue by checking adv7511->i2c_main->irq before exiting interrupt
> >>>> handling from adv7511_irq_process().
> >>>>
> >>>> Fixes: f3d9683346d6 ("drm/bridge: adv7511: Allow IRQ to share GPIO pins")
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Liu Ying <victor.liu@xxxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/adv7511/adv7511_drv.c | 3 ++-
> >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/adv7511/adv7511_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/adv7511/adv7511_drv.c
> >>>> index 6089b0bb9321..2074fa3c1b7b 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/adv7511/adv7511_drv.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/adv7511/adv7511_drv.c
> >>>> @@ -479,7 +479,8 @@ static int adv7511_irq_process(struct adv7511 *adv7511, bool process_hpd)
> >>>> return ret;
> >>>>
> >>>> /* If there is no IRQ to handle, exit indicating no IRQ data */
> >>>> - if (!(irq0 & (ADV7511_INT0_HPD | ADV7511_INT0_EDID_READY)) &&
> >>>> + if (adv7511->i2c_main->irq &&
> >>>> + !(irq0 & (ADV7511_INT0_HPD | ADV7511_INT0_EDID_READY)) &&
> >>>> !(irq1 & ADV7511_INT1_DDC_ERROR))
> >>>> return -ENODATA;
> >>>
> >>> I think it might be better to handle -ENODATA in adv7511_wait_for_edid()
> >>> instead. WDYT?
> >>>
> >>
> >> I think this is may deserve another patch.
> >
> > My point is that the IRQ handler is fine to remove -ENODATA here,
>
> [...]
>
> > there is no pending IRQ that can be handled.
>
> But there may has other things need to do in the adv7511_irq_process()
> function.
But the function returns anyway. So, we know that the condition is broken.
>
> > So instead of continuing
> > the execution when we know that IRQ bits are not set,
>
> Even when IRQ bits are not set, it just means that there is no HPD
> and no EDID ready-to-read signal. HDMI CEC interrupts still need
> to process.
Yes. Let's get the CEC fixed. Then maybe we won't need this commit at all.
>
>
> > it's better to
> > ignore -ENODATA in the calling code and go on with msleep().
> >
>
> So, It's confusing to ignore the -ENODATA here.
[BTW: you had quotation levels wrong in two places, I've fixed them]
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
