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.
>
> BR,
> -R
>
Thanks and regards,
Mythri.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
