On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 at 23:21, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/28/2024 1:58 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Abhinav Kumar (2024-03-28 13:24:34)
> >> + Johan and Bjorn for FYI
> >>
> >> On 3/28/2024 1:04 PM, Kuogee Hsieh wrote:
> >>> For internal HPD case, hpd_event_thread is created to handle HPD
> >>> interrupts generated by HPD block of DP controller. It converts
> >>> HPD interrupts into events and executed them under hpd_event_thread
> >>> context. For external HPD case, HPD events is delivered by way of
> >>> dp_bridge_hpd_notify() under thread context. Since they are executed
> >>> under thread context already, there is no reason to hand over those
> >>> events to hpd_event_thread. Hence dp_hpd_plug_handle() and
> >>> dp_hpd_unplug_hanlde() are called directly at dp_bridge_hpd_notify().
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Kuogee Hsieh <quic_khsieh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c | 5 +++--
> >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>
> >> Fixes: 542b37efc20e ("drm/msm/dp: Implement hpd_notify()")
> >
> > Is this a bug fix or an optimization? The commit text doesn't tell me.
> >
>
> I would say both.
>
> optimization as it avoids the need to go through the hpd_event thread
> processing.
>
> bug fix because once you go through the hpd event thread processing it
> exposes and often breaks the already fragile hpd handling state machine
> which can be avoided in this case.
Please add a description for the particular issue that was observed
and how it is fixed by the patch.
Otherwise consider there to be an implicit NAK for all HPD-related
patches unless it is a series that moves link training to the enable
path and drops the HPD state machine completely.
I really mean it. We should stop beating a dead horse unless there is
a grave bug that must be fixed.
>
> >>
> >> Looks right to me,
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
