Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] dt-bindings: drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: Document no-hpd

[Linus Walleij]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 6:26 PM Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> The ti-sn65dsi86 MIPI DSI to eDP bridge chip has a dedicated hardware
> HPD (Hot Plug Detect) pin on it, but it's mostly useless for eDP
> because of excessive debouncing in hardware.  Specifically there is no
> way to disable the debouncing and for eDP debouncing hurts you because
> HPD is just used for knowing when the panel is ready, not for
> detecting physical plug events.
>
> Currently the driver in Linux just assumes that nobody has HPD hooked
> up.  It relies on folks setting the "no-hpd" property in the panel
> node to specify that HPD isn't hooked up and then the panel driver
> using this to add some worst case delays when turning on the panel.
>
> Apparently it's also useful to specify "no-hpd" in the bridge node so
> that the bridge driver can make sure it's doing the right thing
> without peeking into the panel [1].  This would be used if anyone ever
> found it useful to implement support for the HW HPD pin on the bridge.
> Let's add this property to the bindings.
>
> NOTES:
> - This is somewhat of a backward-incompatible change.  All current
>   known users of ti-sn65dsi86 didn't have "no-hpd" specified in the
>   bridge node yet none of them had HPD hooked up.  This worked because
>   the current Linux driver just assumed that HPD was never hooked up.
>   We could make it less incompatible by saying that for this bridge
>   it's assumed HPD isn't hooked up _unless_ a property is defined, but
>   "no-hpd" is much more standard and it's unlikely to matter unless
>   someone quickly goes and implements HPD in the driver.
> - It is sensible to specify "no-hpd" at the bridge chip level and
>   specify "hpd-gpios" at the panel level.  That would mean HPD is
>   hooked up to some other GPIO in the system, just not the hardware
>   HPD pin on the bridge chip.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200417180819.GE5861@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Makes sense to me so:
Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>

> +  no-hpd:
> +    type: boolean
> +    description: Set if the HPD line on the bridge isn't hooked up to anything.

I would perhaps tag on:
... or is otherwise unusable?

Yours,
Linus Walleij