Hi, On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 2:11 PM Kuogee Hsieh <quic_khsieh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Dmitry, > > > Link rate is advertised by sink, but adjusted (reduced the link rate) > by host during link training. > > Therefore should be fine if host did not support HBR3 rate. > > It will reduce to lower link rate during link training procedures. > > kuogee > > On 10/31/2022 11:46 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > On 31/10/2022 20:27, Kuogee Hsieh wrote: > >> An HBR3-capable device shall also support TPS4. Since TPS4 feature > >> had been implemented already, it is not necessary to limit link > >> rate at HBR2 (5.4G). This patch remove this limitation to support > >> HBR3 (8.1G) link rate. > > > > The DP driver supports several platforms including sdm845 and can > > support, if I'm not mistaken, platforms up to msm8998/sdm630/660. > > Could you please confirm that all these SoCs have support for HBR3? > > > > With that fact being confirmed: > > > > Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Kuogee Hsieh <quic_khsieh@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_panel.c | 4 ---- > >> 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_panel.c > >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_panel.c > >> index 5149ceb..3344f5a 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_panel.c > >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_panel.c > >> @@ -78,10 +78,6 @@ static int dp_panel_read_dpcd(struct dp_panel > >> *dp_panel) > >> if (link_info->num_lanes > dp_panel->max_dp_lanes) > >> link_info->num_lanes = dp_panel->max_dp_lanes; > >> - /* Limit support upto HBR2 until HBR3 support is added */ > >> - if (link_info->rate >= > >> (drm_dp_bw_code_to_link_rate(DP_LINK_BW_5_4))) > >> - link_info->rate = drm_dp_bw_code_to_link_rate(DP_LINK_BW_5_4); > >> - > >> drm_dbg_dp(panel->drm_dev, "version: %d.%d\n", major, minor); > >> drm_dbg_dp(panel->drm_dev, "link_rate=%d\n", link_info->rate); > >> drm_dbg_dp(panel->drm_dev, "lane_count=%d\n", > >> link_info->num_lanes); Stephen might remember better, but I could have sworn that the problem was that there might be something in the middle that couldn't support the higher link rate. In other words, I think we have: SoC <--> TypeC Port Controller <--> Display The SoC might support HBR3 and the display might support HBR3, but the TCPC (Type C Port Controller) might not. I think that the TCPC is a silent/passive component so it can't really let anyone know about its limitations. In theory I guess you could rely on link training to just happen to fail if you drive the link too fast for the TCPC to handle. Does this actually work reliably? I think the other option that was discussed in the past was to add something in the device tree for this. Either you could somehow model the TCPC in DRM and thus know that a given model of TCPC limits the link rate or you could hack in a property in the DP controller to limit it. -Doug
