Hi,
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 1:20 PM Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Let's solve the mystery of commit bf1178c98930 ("drm/bridge:
> ti-sn65dsi86: Add mystery delay to enable()"). Specifically the
> reason we needed that mystery delay is that we weren't paying
> attention to HPD.
>
> Looking at the datasheet for the same panel that was tested for the
> original commit, I see there's a timing "t3" that times from power on
> to the aux channel being operational. This time is specced as 0 - 200
> ms. The datasheet says that the aux channel is operational at exactly
> the same time that HPD is asserted.
>
> Scoping the signals on this board showed that HPD was asserted 84 ms
> after power was asserted. That very closely matches the magic 70 ms
> delay that we had. ...and actually, in my esting the 70 ms wasn't
> quite enough of a delay and some percentage of the time the display
> didn't come up until I bumped it to 100 ms.
>
> To solve this, we tried to hook up the HPD signal in the bridge.
> ...but in doing so we found that that the bridge didn't report that
> HPD was asserted until ~280 ms after we powered it (!). This is
> explained by looking at the sn65dsi86 datasheet section "8.4.5.1 HPD
> (Hot Plug/Unplug Detection)". Reading there we see that the bridge
> isn't even intended to report HPD until 100 ms after it's asserted.
> ...but that would have left us at 184 ms. The extra 100 ms
> (presumably) comes from this part in the datasheet:
>
> > The HPD state machine operates off an internal ring oscillator. The
> > ring oscillator frequency will vary [ ... ]. The min/max range in
> > the HPD State Diagram refers to the possible times based off
> > variation in the ring oscillator frequency.
>
> Given that the 280 ms we'll end up delaying if we hook up HPD is
> _slower_ than the 200 ms we could just hardcode, for now we'll solve
> the problem by just allowing boards to hardcode a value. If someone
> using this part finds that they can get things to work more quickly by
> actually hooking up HPD that can always be a future patch.
>
> One last note is that I tried to solve this through another way: In
> ti_sn_bridge_enable() I tried to use various combinations of
> dp_dpcd_writeb() and dp_dpcd_readb() to detect when the aux channel
> was up. In theory that would let me detect _exactly_ when I could
> continue and do link training. Unfortunately even if I did an aux
> transfer w/out waiting I couldn't see any errors. Possibly I could
> keep looping over link training until it came back with success, but
> that seemed a little overly hacky to me.
>
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
Adding breadcrumbs to point to the new version of this patch at
<https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1002549/> AKA ("[4/6]
drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: Remove the mystery delay"). I didn't call
that a v2 since it's a pretty different approach compared to this one,
but (assuming people are OK w/ it) it replaces this patch.
Thanks!
-Doug
