Re: [PATCH v9 1/4] drm/msm/dp: Add eDP support via aux_bus

[Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>]

On 25/04/2022 23:26, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Sankeerth Billakanti (QUIC) (2022-04-25 02:39:43)
>> Hi Stephen,
>>
>>> Quoting Sankeerth Billakanti (2022-04-22 02:11:03)
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c
>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c
>>>> index d7a19d6..055681a 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c
>>>
>>> Some nitpicks
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>
>>>
>>>> @@ -1508,7 +1509,8 @@ void msm_dp_irq_postinstall(struct msm_dp
>>>> *dp_display)
>>>>
>>>>          dp_hpd_event_setup(dp);
>>>>
>>>> -       dp_add_event(dp, EV_HPD_INIT_SETUP, 0, 100);
>>>> +       if (!dp_display->is_edp)
>>>> +               dp_add_event(dp, EV_HPD_INIT_SETUP, 0, 100);
>>>
>>> Did it turn out that in fact DP isn't ready still to setup even after delaying the
>>> irq?
>>>
>>
>> The host_init, config_hpd, phy_init and enable_irq are happening in modeset_init already for eDP.
>> So, I am not scheduling the EV_HPD_INIT_SETUP event for eDP. I am not modifying the delay for DP.
> 
> Cool. That didn't answer my question though. Why does DP still need the
> delay? I thought recent changes made it unnecessary.

I'd say that if it is not necessary, it should be changed in the 
separate commit. The question is valid nevertheless.


-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry