From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "K, Mythri P" Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 08:39:07 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 09/15] OMAP: DSS2: HDMI: implement detect() Message-Id: List-Id: References: <1315818818-18733-1-git-send-email-tomi.valkeinen@ti.com> <1315818818-18733-10-git-send-email-tomi.valkeinen@ti.com> <1315984468.2172.10.camel@deskari> In-Reply-To: <1315984468.2172.10.camel@deskari> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: Tomi Valkeinen Cc: Rob Clark , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, archit@ti.com On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wr= ote: > On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 11:04 +0530, K, Mythri P wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Rob Clark wrote: >> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 8:24 AM, K, Mythri P wrote: >> >>> +bool ti_hdmi_4xxx_detect(struct hdmi_ip_data *ip_data) >> >>> +{ >> >>> + =A0 =A0 =A0 int r; >> >>> + >> >>> + =A0 =A0 =A0 void __iomem *base =3D hdmi_core_sys_base(ip_data); >> >>> + >> >>> + =A0 =A0 =A0 /* HPD */ >> >>> + =A0 =A0 =A0 r =3D REG_GET(base, HDMI_CORE_SYS_SYS_STAT, 1, 1); >> >>> + >> >>> + =A0 =A0 =A0 return r =3D 1; >> >>> +} >> >>> + >> >> For HPD the probe should also be on the core interrupt first , and the >> >> detect should be dynamic, ie based on the cable connect and disconnect >> >> event.So this approach for HPD is not really the way. >> >> Also that should be based on the GPIO(63) , I am planning to push a >> >> patch on that shortly. >> > >> > >> > Fwiw, we do still need a dssdrv->detect() function from omapdrm >> > driver.. =A0if there is another way to implement that function, such as >> > with a GPIO, that is great. =A0But somehow or another we need the dete= ct >> > function. =A0The implementation can always change later. >> Yes we still need a detect , but the implementation would be different >> , from the prior experience with the Hot-plug detection it wad found >> that the interrupt based way to handle HPD was not the best ,but if >> this is just to poll the status then it should be fine. > > I'm not sure I understood. First you say the implementation should be > different, but then you say this should be fine. So is this a valid > implementation for detect() or is there a better way to do it? > There is a better way to handle Hot-plug detection and notification.. But depends on what is the purpose of this function, Ideally a detect would be the case to dynamically detect whether the cable is connected on not , But all this function does is to see the state of the HPD bit in core state statically. So I said if the purpose of this function is only to check for the HPD state bit it is fine. Thanks and regards, Mythri. > =A0Tomi > > > >