From: "Stefan Brüns" <stefan.bruens@rwth-aachen.de>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
<intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] drm/i915: Try EDID bitbanging on HDMI after failed read
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 10:23:15 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2107557.Ofm5HlIVOH@pebbles> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87vagj2z2w.fsf@intel.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2728 bytes --]
On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 8:14:47 AM CET Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Jan 2018, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> > Quoting Rodrigo Vivi (2018-01-02 19:12:18)
> >
> >> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 10:34:54PM +0000, Stefan Brüns wrote:
> >> > + edid = drm_get_edid(connector, i2c);
> >> > +
> >> > + if (!edid && !intel_gmbus_is_forced_bit(i2c)) {
> >> > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("HDMI GMBUS EDID read failed, retry using
> >> > GPIO bit-banging\n"); + intel_gmbus_force_bit(i2c, true);
> >> > + edid = drm_get_edid(connector, i2c);
> >> > + intel_gmbus_force_bit(i2c, false);
> >> > + }
> >>
> >> Approach seems fine for this case.
> >> I just wonder what would be the risks of forcing this bit and edid read
> >> when nothing is present on the other end?>
> > Should be no more risky than using GMBUS as the bit-banging is the
> > underlying HW protocol; it should just be adding an extra delay to
> > the disconnected probe. Offset against the chance that it fixes
> > detection of borderline devices.
> >
> > I would say that given the explanation above, the question is why not
> > apply it universally? (Bonus points for including the explanation as
> > comments.)
>
> I'm wondering, is gmbus too fast for the adapters, does gmbus generally
> have different timing for the ack/nak as described in the commit message
> than bit banging, or are the adapters just plain buggy? Do we have any
> control over gmbus timings (don't have the time to peruse the bpsec just
> now)?
I have seen two different behaviours, one on the ~2009 GM965, the other on the
~2013 Haswell. The Haswell provides a 250..500ns hold time, the other does
not.
There is a flag in the GMBUS0 register, GMBUS_HOLD_EXT, "300ns hold time, rsvd
on Pineview". The driver does not set this flag. Possibly it is always set/
implied on the Haswell (which is post-Pineview), and should be set for
anything older than Pineview.
There is another odd fact with the GM965, according to the register setting it
should run at 100 kBit/s, but it only runs at 30 kBit/s. The Haswell runs at
100 kBit/s, as specified. As there are also idle periods ever 8 bytes, the
EDID read takes 270ms before it fails.
The bitbanging code, running at 45 kBit/s (2 * 20us per clock cycle plus
overhead) on the other hand just needs 58 ms, but keeps one core busy
(udelay).
Unfortunately I currently have no older system than the Haswell available, so
I can not check if the GMBUS_HOLD_EXT flag has any effect.
Kind regards,
Stefan
--
Stefan Brüns / Bergstraße 21 / 52062 Aachen
home: +49 241 53809034 mobile: +49 151 50412019
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-01-03 9:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-12-31 22:34 [PATCH v2] drm/i915: Try EDID bitbanging on HDMI after failed read Stefan Brüns
2018-01-02 19:12 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2018-01-02 19:24 ` [Intel-gfx] " Chris Wilson
2018-01-03 7:14 ` Jani Nikula
2018-01-03 9:23 ` Stefan Brüns [this message]
2018-01-09 9:06 ` Daniel Vetter
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=2107557.Ofm5HlIVOH@pebbles \
--to=stefan.bruens@rwth-aachen.de \
--cc=airlied@linux.ie \
--cc=chris@chris-wilson.co.uk \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=jani.nikula@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
/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