Hi Jingoo,
On 12/23/2015 12:24 PM, Yakir Yang wrote:
> Hi Jingoo,
>
> On 12/22/2015 08:26 PM, Jingoo Han wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 12:58 PM, Yakir Yang wrote:
>>> After test on rockchiop platform, i found sometims driver would failed
>>> at reading EDID message. After debugging more, i found that it's okay
>>> to read_a byte from i2c, but it would failed at AUX transcation if we
>>> try to ready multi-bytes from i2c.
>>>
>>> Driver just can't received the AUX CH reply command, even no AUX error
>>> code. I may guess that the AUX wait time is not enough, so I try to
>>> expand the AUX wait time, and i do see this could fix the EDID read
>>> failed at rockchip platform.
>>>
>>> And I thought that expand the wait time won't hurt Exynos platform too
>>> much, cause Exynos didn't have this problem, then driver would received
>>> the reply command very soon, so no more additional wait time would
>>> bring
>>> to Exynos platform.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Yakir Yang <ykk at rock-chips.com>
>>> ---
>>> Changes in v11: None
>>> Changes in v10: None
>>> Changes in v9: None
>>> Changes in v8: None
>>> Changes in v7: None
>>> Changes in v6: None
>>> Changes in v5: None
>>> Changes in v4: None
>>> Changes in v3: None
>>> Changes in v2: None
>>>
>>> drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_reg.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_reg.c
>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_reg.c
>>> index c7e2959..dc376bd 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_reg.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_reg.c
>>> @@ -482,7 +482,7 @@ int analogix_dp_start_aux_transaction(struct
>>> analogix_dp_device *dp)
>>> reg = readl(dp->reg_base + ANALOGIX_DP_INT_STA);
>>> while (!(reg & RPLY_RECEIV)) {
>>> timeout_loop++;
>>> - if (DP_TIMEOUT_LOOP_COUNT < timeout_loop) {
>>> + if (DP_TIMEOUT_LOOP_COUNT * 10 < timeout_loop) {
>> No, I hate this coding.
>> analogix_dp_reg.c is the common code that can be shared by various SoCs.
>> Please, find another way.
>
> Okay, I have double checked that i do have this problem in my side.
> Hmmm.....
> I thought it's okay for you if I expand the "DP_TIMEOUT_LOOP_COUNT"
> directly,
> it won't hurt Exynos platform too much, cause Exynos didn't have this
> problem,
> then driver would received,the reply command very soon, so no more
> additional
> wait time would bring to Exynos platform.
>
Oh, sorry, little mistaken, I mean, is it okay for you to expand the
"DP_TIMEOUT_LOOP_COUNT" directly ?
- Yakir
> And actually the datasheet haven't described the spec of aux reply
> delay time.
>
> Thanks,
> - Yakir
>
>> Best regards,
>> Jingoo Han
>>
>>
>>> dev_err(dp->dev, "AUX CH command reply failed!\n");
>>> return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>> }
>>> --
>>> 1.9.1
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-rockchip mailing list
> Linux-rockchip at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
>
>
>
