Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 26 Apr 2022 00:12:15 +0300 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v9 1/4] drm/msm/dp: Add eDP support via aux_bus | From | Dmitry Baryshkov <> |
| |
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
| |