Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 24 Jun 2022 16:30:59 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] drm/msm/dp: decoupling dp->id out of dp controller_id at scxxxx_dp_cfg table | From | Kuogee Hsieh <> |
| |
On 6/24/2022 4:12 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > Quoting Kuogee Hsieh (2022-06-24 15:53:45) >> MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_1 need to match to the index = 1 of sc7280_dp_cfg[] <== This is correct >> >> The problem is sc7280_dp_cfg[] have two entries since eDP place at index >> of MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_1. >> >> but .num_desc = 1 <== this said only have one entry at sc7280_dp_cfg[] >> table. Therefore eDP will never be found at for loop at >> _dpu_kms_initialize_displayport(). >> > Yes, but what else does the MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_1 need to match? Because > the intention of the previous commit was to make it so the order of > sc7280_dp_cfg couldn't be messed up and not match the > MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_1 value that lives in sc7280_intf[].
at _dpu_kms_initialize_displayport()
> - info.h_tile_instance[0] = i; <== assign i to become dp controller id, "i" is index of scxxxx_dp_cfg[]
This what I mean MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_1 need to match to index = 1 of scxxxx_dp_cfg[].
it it is not match, then MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_1 with match to different INTF.
> >> Sorry, my mistake. it is not in drm_bridge_add. >> >> It should be in dpu_encoder_init() of _dpu_kms_initialize_displayport(). >> >> can you make below changes (patch) to _dpu_kms_initialize_displayport(). >> > Yes, I've made that change to try to understand the problem. I still > don't understand, sadly. Does flipping the order of iteration through > 'priv->dp' somehow mean that the crtc that is assigned to the eDP > connector is left unchanged? Whereas without registering the eDP encoder > first means we have to change the crtc for the eDP encoder and that > can't be done atomically?
| |