public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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 --]

  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