Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 27 Jun 2022 08:49:22 -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 6/27/2022 8:38 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 at 18:33, Kuogee Hsieh <quic_khsieh@quicinc.com> wrote: >> >> On 6/24/2022 6:15 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: >>> Quoting Kuogee Hsieh (2022-06-24 18:02:50) >>>> On 6/24/2022 5:46 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 at 03:28, Dmitry Baryshkov >>>>> <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 at 03:23, Kuogee Hsieh <quic_khsieh@quicinc.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/24/2022 5:21 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 at 03:19, Kuogee Hsieh <quic_khsieh@quicinc.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> How can I have eDP call dpu_encoder_init() before DP calls with >>>>>>>>> _dpu_kms_initialize_displayport()? >>>>>>>> Why do you want to do it? They are two different encoders. >>>>>>> eDP is primary display which in normal case should be bring up first if >>>>>>> DP is also presented. >>>>>> I do not like the concept of primary display. It is the user, who must >>>>>> decide which display is primary to him. I have seen people using just >>>>>> external monitors and ignoring built-in eDP completely.from >>>>>> Also, why does the bring up order matters here? What do you gain by >>>>>> bringing up eDP before the DP? >>>>> I should probably rephrase my question to be more clear. How does >>>>> changing the order of DP vs eDP bringup help you 'to fix screen >>>>> corruption'. >>>> it did fix the primary display correction issue if edp go first and i do >>>> not know the root cause yet. >>>> >>>> We are still investigating it. >>>> >>>> However I do think currently msm_dp_config sc7280_dp_cfg has issues need >>>> be addressed. >>>> >>> What issues exist with sc7280_dp_cfg? It looks correct to me. >> >> If we are going to bring up a new chipset with edp as primary only, i am >> not sure the below configuration will work? >> >>> static const struct msm_dp_config sc7280_dp_cfg = { >>> .descs = (const struct msm_dp_desc[]) { >>> [MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_1] = { .io_start = 0x0aea0000, .connector_type = DRM_MODE_CONNECTOR_eDP, .wide_bus_en = true }, >>> }, >>> .num_descs = 1, >>> }; > As I wrote in one of the comments, there is an issue with num_descs > being not obvious (in your example it should be 2, not 1). I thought > about dropping it and looping until the MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_COUNT, but > this would result in other kinds of hard-to-catch issues. Let me muse > about it.
Thanks for consideration.
| |