lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [May]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: pca953x issue when driving a DSI bridge
From
Hi Andy,

On 10/05/2023 19:25, andy.shevchenko@gmail.com wrote:
> Wed, May 10, 2023 at 06:12:19PM +0200, Jean-Michel Hautbois kirjoitti:
>> Hello there !
>>
>> I have a custom board, based on a i.MX8mm SoC which has a MIPI-DSI to eDP
>> bridge (namely, a TI sn65dsi86). This bridge has a DSI enable pin, which is
>> basically its reset pin, connected to my PCA9539 GPIO expander.
>>
>> The issue is that this pin can't be sleeping, and it is tested in the
>> gpiod_set_value() function.
>>
>> Here is where it fails in my dmesg:
>
> ...
>
>> [ 11.273968] gpiod_set_value+0x5c/0xcc
>> [ 11.277722] ti_sn65dsi86_resume+0x4c/0x94 [ti_sn65dsi86]
>
> Your problem even worse, i.e. ->resume() might sleep.

Indeed it is worse ;-).

>
>> [ 11.283131] __rpm_callback+0x48/0x19c
>> [ 11.286885] rpm_callback+0x6c/0x80
>> [ 11.290375] rpm_resume+0x3b0/0x660
>> [ 11.293864] __pm_runtime_resume+0x4c/0x90
>> [ 11.297960] __device_attach+0x90/0x1e4
>> [ 11.301797] device_initial_probe+0x14/0x20
>> [ 11.305980] bus_probe_device+0x9c/0xa4
>> [ 11.309817] device_add+0x3d8/0x820
>> [ 11.313308] __auxiliary_device_add+0x40/0xa0
>> [ 11.317668] ti_sn65dsi86_add_aux_device.isra.0+0xb0/0xe0 [ti_sn65dsi86]
>> [ 11.324381] ti_sn65dsi86_probe+0x20c/0x2ec [ti_sn65dsi86]
>> [ 11.329876] i2c_device_probe+0x3b8/0x3f0
>> [ 11.333889] really_probe+0xc0/0x3dc
>
> ...
>
>> I suppose this is not a corner case and we may have other drivers and other
>> boards connecting a GPIO which can sleep in a context where it should not ?
>>
>> I would like to add one thing: on this board, the expander is routed in a
>> way that makes it impossible to "sleep" as the reset is forced pulled-up and
>> the power regulators are fixed and can't be stopped.
>
> Can you elaborate why you think there is a problem?

I didn't know if it could be an issue or not, so I mentioned it but
sounds like a nonsense :-).

>
>> I don't know how to address this issue nicely and any thoughts is
>> appreciated !
>
> As a workaround you can consider the code around i2c_in_atomic_xfer_mode()
> but since I have heard about i.MX8 so many negative remarks which makes me
> think that hardware is a train wreck and shouldn't be used at all.
>

Not sure to get the workaround proposal right...
I won't argue about i.MX8 ;-).

Thanks,
JM

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-05-10 22:19    [W:0.143 / U:0.292 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site