Hi All,
I'm working to respin the remainder of these patches, now that I have
IRQ based HPD working on the SN65DSI86, and the (non-eDP) mode is used
for Renesas R-Car boards.
Quoting Doug Anderson (2021-06-24 00:51:12)
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 4:26 PM Laurent Pinchart
> <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > > @@ -1365,7 +1384,8 @@ static int ti_sn_bridge_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> > > >
> > > > pdata->bridge.funcs = &ti_sn_bridge_funcs;
> > > > pdata->bridge.of_node = client->dev.of_node;
> > > > - pdata->bridge.ops = DRM_BRIDGE_OP_EDID;
> > > > + pdata->bridge.ops = (pdata->no_hpd ? 0 : DRM_BRIDGE_OP_DETECT)
> > >
> > > Checking for "no_hpd" here is not the right test IIUC. You want to
> > > check for eDP vs. DP (AKA whether a panel is downstream of you or a
> > > connector). Specifically if downstream of you is a panel then (I
> > > believe) HPD won't assert until you turn on the panel and you won't
> > > turn on the panel (which happens in pre_enable, right?) until HPD
> > > fires, so you've got a chicken-and-egg problem. If downstream of you
> > > is a connector, though, then by definition HPD has to just work
> > > without pre_enable running so then you're OK.
> >
> > Agreed. It's even more true now that your rework has landed, as in the
> > eDP case EDID is handled by the panel driver. I'll rework this.
> >
> > Should I also condition setting HPD_DISABLE to the presence of a panel
> > then ? I could drop of_property_read_bool() and set
> >
> > pdata->no_hpd = !!panel;
> >
> > > I guess then you'd need to figure out what to do if someone wants to
> > > use "HPD" on eDP. Do you need to put a polling loop in pre_enable
> > > then? Or you could just punt not support this case until someone needs
> > > it.
> >
> > I think I'll stop short of saving the world this time, yes :-) We'll see
> > what to do when this case arises.
>
> How about as a compromise you still call of_property_read_bool() but
> add some type of warning in the logs if someone didn't set "no-hpd"
> but they have a panel?
Would a mix of the two work well?
What about:
pdata->no_hpd = of_property_read_bool(np, "no-hpd");
if (panel && !pdata->no_hpd) {
DRM_ERROR("Panels will not function with HPD. Enforcing no-hpd\n");
pdata->no_hpd = true;
}
That leaves it still optional to DP connectors, but enforced on eDP?
> > > > + | DRM_BRIDGE_OP_EDID;
> > >
> > > IMO somewhere in here if HPD is being used like this you should throw
> > > in a call to pm_runtime_get_sync(). I guess in your solution the
> > > regulators (for the bridge, not the panel) and enable pin are just
> > > left on all the time,
> >
> > Correct, on my development board the SN65DSI86 is on all the time, I
> > can't control that.
> >
> > > but plausibly someone might want to build a
> > > system to use HPD and also have the enable pin and/or regulators
> > > controlled by this driver, right?
> >
> > True. DRM doesn't make this very easy, as, as far as I can tell, there's
> > no standard infrastructure for userspace to register an interest in HPD
> > that could be notified to bridges. I think it should be fixable, but
> > it's out of scope for this series :-) Should I still add a
> > pm_runtime_get_sync() at probe time, or leave this to be addressed by
> > someone who will need to implement power control ?
>
> IMO if you've detected you're running in DP mode you should add the
> pm_runtime_get_sync() in probe to keep it powered all the time and
> that seems the simplest. Technically I guess that's not really
> required since you're polling and you could power off between polls,
> but then you'd have to re-init a bunch of your state each time you
> polled too. If you ever transitioned to using an IRQ for HPD then
> you'd have to keep it always powered anyway.
Hrm ... that's precisely what I've done. It's not IRQ based HPD...
So would you like to see something like this during
ti_sn_bridge_probe()?
/* The device must remain powered up for HPD to be supported. */
if (!pdata->no_hpd)
pm_runtime_get_sync(pdata->dev);
--
Regards
Kieran
>
> -Doug
