On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 11:04 +0530, K, Mythri P wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 8:24 AM, K, Mythri P <mythripk@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> +bool ti_hdmi_4xxx_detect(struct hdmi_ip_data *ip_data)
> >>> +{
> >>> + int r;
> >>> +
> >>> + void __iomem *base = hdmi_core_sys_base(ip_data);
> >>> +
> >>> + /* HPD */
> >>> + r = REG_GET(base, HDMI_CORE_SYS_SYS_STAT, 1, 1);
> >>> +
> >>> + return r == 1;
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >> For HPD the probe should also be on the core interrupt first , and the
> >> detect should be dynamic, ie based on the cable connect and disconnect
> >> event.So this approach for HPD is not really the way.
> >> Also that should be based on the GPIO(63) , I am planning to push a
> >> patch on that shortly.
> >
> >
> > Fwiw, we do still need a dssdrv->detect() function from omapdrm
> > driver.. if there is another way to implement that function, such as
> > with a GPIO, that is great. But somehow or another we need the detect
> > function. The implementation can always change later.
> Yes we still need a detect , but the implementation would be different
> , from the prior experience with the Hot-plug detection it wad found
> that the interrupt based way to handle HPD was not the best ,but if
> this is just to poll the status then it should be fine.
I'm not sure I understood. First you say the implementation should be
different, but then you say this should be fine. So is this a valid
implementation for detect() or is there a better way to do it?
Tomi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fbdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
