RE: [PATCH v9 1/4] drm/msm/dp: Add eDP support via aux_bus

[Sankeerth Billakanti (QUIC)]

Hi Stephen,

>>>> Quoting Sankeerth Billakanti (2022-04-22 02:11:03)
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c
>>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c
>>>>> index d7a19d6..055681a 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c
>>>>
>>>> Some nitpicks
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>>> @@ -1508,7 +1509,8 @@ void msm_dp_irq_postinstall(struct msm_dp
>>>>> *dp_display)
>>>>>
>>>>>          dp_hpd_event_setup(dp);
>>>>>
>>>>> -       dp_add_event(dp, EV_HPD_INIT_SETUP, 0, 100);
>>>>> +       if (!dp_display->is_edp)
>>>>> +               dp_add_event(dp, EV_HPD_INIT_SETUP, 0, 100);
>>>>
>>>> Did it turn out that in fact DP isn't ready still to setup even
>>>> after delaying the irq?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The host_init, config_hpd, phy_init and enable_irq are happening in
>modeset_init already for eDP.
>>> So, I am not scheduling the EV_HPD_INIT_SETUP event for eDP. I am not
>modifying the delay for DP.
>>
>> Cool. That didn't answer my question though. Why does DP still need
>> the delay? I thought recent changes made it unnecessary.
>
>I'd say that if it is not necessary, it should be changed in the separate commit.
>The question is valid nevertheless.
>

Yes, that is right. The delay is unnecessary with the recent changes.
Like Dmitry rightly suggested, we will remove the delay in a separate commit.

>
>--
>With best wishes
>Dmitry