Re: [PATCH v6 4/5] drm/bridge: anx7625: add HDCP support
From: Xin Ji
Date: Fri Apr 02 2021 - 05:16:11 EST
On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 11:59:39AM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Xin,
>
> On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 10:27:08AM +0800, Xin Ji wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 02:02:08PM -0400, Sean Paul wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 6:27 AM Xin Ji <xji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 02:19:23PM -0400, Sean Paul wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 2:35 AM Xin Ji <xji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Add HDCP feature, enable HDCP function through chip internal key
> > > > > > and downstream's capability.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Xin Ji <xji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > ---
> > >
> > > /snip
> > >
> > > > > > static void anx7625_dp_start(struct anx7625_data *ctx)
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > int ret;
> > > > > > @@ -643,6 +787,9 @@ static void anx7625_dp_start(struct anx7625_data *ctx)
> > > > > > return;
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > + /* HDCP config */
> > > > > > + anx7625_hdcp_setting(ctx);
> > > > >
> > > > > You should really use the "Content Protection" property to
> > > > > enable/disable HDCP instead of force-enabling it at all times.
> > > >
> > > > Hi Sean, it's hard to implement "Content Protection" property, we have
> > > > implemented HDCP in firmware, it is not compatible with it. We don't
> > > > have interface to get Downstream Cert.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Xin
> > >
> > > Hi Xin,
> > > I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean when you say you don't
> > > have an interface to get Downstream Cert.
> > >
> > > The Content Protection property is just a means through which
> > > userspace can turn on and turn off HDCP when it needs. As far as I can
> > > tell, your patch turns on HDCP when the display is enabled and leaves
> > > it on until it is disabled. This is undesirable since it forces HDCP
> > > on the user.
> > >
> > > Is it impossible to enable/disable HDCP outside of display
> > > enable/disable on your hardware?
> >
> > Hi Sean, I have commit a test patch on google review site, can you
> > please help to review it? I'll use Connector's ".atomic_check()"
> > interface to detect Content Protection property change.
> > (https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fchromium-review.googlesource.com%2Fc%2Fchromiumos%2Fthird_party%2Fkernel%2F%2B%2F2674580&data=04%7C01%7Cxji%40analogixsemi.com%7Cd778885f3d0d4b4358a908d8f5b5c273%7Cb099b0b4f26c4cf59a0fd5be9acab205%7C0%7C0%7C637529508334886979%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=vo8zP8SAhLrQk0%2FWh1OhXHAZzLU9lJ4NLaYddI6t2ZU%3D&reserved=0)
>
> Please note that upstream review happens on mailing lists, not in
> gerrit. Internal reviews for Chrome OS development are certainly fine
> there, but that will not mean the patch will then be accepted upstream
> as-is, it will still need to go through the upstream review process,
> without any shortcut. I strongly recommend using an upstream-first
> strategy, with public review.
Hi Laurent Pinchart, OK, got it, thanks for the note.
Thanks,
Xin
>
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > if (ctx->pdata.is_dpi)
> > > > > > ret = anx7625_dpi_config(ctx);
> > > > > > else
> > >
> > > /snip
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Laurent Pinchart