From: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com>
To: Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@linaro.org>
Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] OMAPDSS: HDMI: Discard phy_tx_enabled member
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 13:11:11 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1340025071.4012.27.camel@deskari> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJe_ZhdoEjyf0ejjsJJpznt83bTJTR0UW3aqaYAZdcm01GBp_A@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 965 bytes --]
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 18:37 +0530, Jassi Brar wrote:
> On 18 June 2012 17:54, Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 17:16 +0530, Jassi Brar wrote:
>
> >> So preferably I would move request_threaded_irq() to after
> >> hdmi_check_hpd_state() in ti_hdmi_4xxx_phy_enable() and convert the
> >
> > No, you can't move the check. If you move it, the HPD state could change
> > between the check and the request_irq, and we'd miss it.
> >
> Wouldn't we then get an irq, and hence another hdmi_check_hpd_state(), for that?
No, if we haven't requested the irq yet. So what could happen:
- initially the cable is unplugged
- ti_hdmi_4xxx_phy_enable() calls hdmi_check_hpd_state(), nothing is
done as cable is unplugged
- cable plugged in
- ti_hdmi_4xxx_phy_enable() calls request_irq. No irq raised, as the
cable's state doesn't change.
We wouldn't know that cable is actually plugged in at that point.
Tomi
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com>
To: Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@linaro.org>
Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] OMAPDSS: HDMI: Discard phy_tx_enabled member
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:11:11 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1340025071.4012.27.camel@deskari> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJe_ZhdoEjyf0ejjsJJpznt83bTJTR0UW3aqaYAZdcm01GBp_A@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 965 bytes --]
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 18:37 +0530, Jassi Brar wrote:
> On 18 June 2012 17:54, Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 17:16 +0530, Jassi Brar wrote:
>
> >> So preferably I would move request_threaded_irq() to after
> >> hdmi_check_hpd_state() in ti_hdmi_4xxx_phy_enable() and convert the
> >
> > No, you can't move the check. If you move it, the HPD state could change
> > between the check and the request_irq, and we'd miss it.
> >
> Wouldn't we then get an irq, and hence another hdmi_check_hpd_state(), for that?
No, if we haven't requested the irq yet. So what could happen:
- initially the cable is unplugged
- ti_hdmi_4xxx_phy_enable() calls hdmi_check_hpd_state(), nothing is
done as cable is unplugged
- cable plugged in
- ti_hdmi_4xxx_phy_enable() calls request_irq. No irq raised, as the
cable's state doesn't change.
We wouldn't know that cable is actually plugged in at that point.
Tomi
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-06-18 13:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-06-15 22:01 [PATCH] OMAPDSS: HDMI: Discard phy_tx_enabled member jaswinder.singh
2012-06-15 22:13 ` jaswinder.singh
2012-06-17 23:44 ` Jingoo Han
2012-06-17 23:44 ` Jingoo Han
2012-06-18 8:11 ` Tomi Valkeinen
2012-06-18 8:11 ` Tomi Valkeinen
2012-06-18 10:12 ` Jassi Brar
2012-06-18 10:24 ` Jassi Brar
2012-06-18 10:54 ` Tomi Valkeinen
2012-06-18 10:54 ` Tomi Valkeinen
2012-06-18 11:46 ` Jassi Brar
2012-06-18 11:58 ` Jassi Brar
2012-06-18 12:24 ` Tomi Valkeinen
2012-06-18 12:24 ` Tomi Valkeinen
2012-06-18 13:07 ` Jassi Brar
2012-06-18 13:19 ` Jassi Brar
2012-06-18 13:11 ` Tomi Valkeinen [this message]
2012-06-18 13:11 ` Tomi Valkeinen
2012-06-18 13:24 ` Jassi Brar
2012-06-18 13:36 ` Jassi Brar
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-06-23 8:07 jaswinder.singh
2012-06-23 8:19 ` jaswinder.singh
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1340025071.4012.27.camel@deskari \
--to=tomi.valkeinen@ti.com \
--cc=jaswinder.singh@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.