From: "Nautiyal, Ankit K" <ankit.k.nautiyal@intel.com>
To: Pablo Ceballos <pceballos@google.com>
Cc: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>,
intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] drm/i915/display/lspcon: Increase LSPCON mode settle timeout
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2023 09:32:59 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a2b08289-e7d0-3003-5fd3-fe3a437cb967@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAO9JgFx2i=S5P6_ndO85k3GFnggyJW1pXavc1emmSC3yjO8M7A@mail.gmail.com>
On 7/8/2023 1:04 AM, Pablo Ceballos wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 9:35 PM Nautiyal, Ankit K
> <ankit.k.nautiyal@intel.com> wrote:
>> I was wondering if trying to set LS/PCON mode multiple time will have
>> any effect.
>>
>> Unfortunately I do not have access to machine with Parade LSPCON chip,
>> had suggested in yet another git lab issue [2].
>>
>> I have a patch for this, sent to try-bot, though not sent to intel-gfx
>> yet [3].
> I tested this patch and it did not resolve the problem. The error log
> was repeated multiple times and there were still link training issues
> afterwards.
Really appreciate to try this thing out, thanks. Too bad it didn't
workout :(
I have seen increasing timeout does improves situation, but didn't have
enough data points to come to a timeout value.
I agree with the change based on the experiments and data you have shared.
Lets just change the timeout to 800 ms when the lspcon->vendor is
LSPCON_VENDOR_PARADE, so that it doesn't have any effect on platforms
that don't have this.
IMHO a function to get timeout value based on lspcon vendor will be
better (returns 800 ms for Parade, 400 otherwise.)
In the function itself, we can have the explanation of arriving at 800
ms for the Parade chip (as given in the commit message) as a comment.
Thanks again for trying different solutions.
Regards,
Ankit
>> The timeout value was already increased from 100 ms to 400 ms earlier too.
>>
>> If there is indeed no other way, perhaps need to have this solution.
> Yes, can this please be merged?
>
> Regards,
> Pablo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-10 4:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-06-14 23:54 [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] drm/i915/display/lspcon: Increase LSPCON mode settle timeout Pablo Ceballos
2023-06-15 4:35 ` Nautiyal, Ankit K
2023-07-07 19:34 ` Pablo Ceballos
2023-07-10 4:02 ` Nautiyal, Ankit K [this message]
2023-06-15 7:44 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for drm/i915/display/lspcon: Increase LSPCON mode settle timeout (rev3) Patchwork
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=a2b08289-e7d0-3003-5fd3-fe3a437cb967@intel.com \
--to=ankit.k.nautiyal@intel.com \
--cc=airlied@gmail.com \
--cc=daniel@ffwll.ch \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pceballos@google.com \
--cc=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
--cc=sam@ravnborg.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox