Hi,
On Thu, May 1, 2025 at 12:48 AM <max.oss...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Max Krummenacher <max.krummenac...@toradex.com>
>
> The bridge driver currently disables handling the hot plug input and
> relies on a always connected eDP panel with fixed delays when the
> panel is ready.
Not entirely correct. In some cases we don't have fixed delays and
instead use a GPIO for HPD. That GPIO gets routed to the eDP panel
code.
> If one uses the bridge for a regular display port monitor this
> assumption is no longer true.
> If used with a display port monitor change to keep the hot plug
> detection functionality enabled and change to have the bridge working
> during runtime suspend to be able to detect the connection state.
>
> Note that if HPD_DISABLE is set the HPD bit always returns connected
> independent of the actual state of the hot plug pin. Thus
> currently bridge->detect() always returns connected.
If that's true, it feels like this needs:
Fixes: c312b0df3b13 ("drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: Implement bridge
connector operations for DP")
...and it would be nice to get Laurent to confirm. Seems weird that he
wouldn't have noticed that.
> Signed-off-by: Max Krummenacher <max.krummenac...@toradex.com>
>
> ---
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c | 13 +++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
> index 01d456b955ab..c7496bf142d1 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
> @@ -333,9 +333,11 @@ static void ti_sn65dsi86_enable_comms(struct
> ti_sn65dsi86 *pdata)
> * If HPD somehow makes sense on some future panel we'll have to
> * change this to be conditional on someone specifying that HPD should
> * be used.
> + * Only disable HDP if used for eDP.
> */
> - regmap_update_bits(pdata->regmap, SN_HPD_DISABLE_REG, HPD_DISABLE,
> - HPD_DISABLE);
> + if (pdata->bridge.type == DRM_MODE_CONNECTOR_eDP)
> + regmap_update_bits(pdata->regmap, SN_HPD_DISABLE_REG,
> + HPD_DISABLE, HPD_DISABLE);
>
> pdata->comms_enabled = true;
>
> @@ -357,6 +359,10 @@ static int __maybe_unused ti_sn65dsi86_resume(struct
> device *dev)
> struct ti_sn65dsi86 *pdata = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> int ret;
>
> + if (pdata->bridge.type == DRM_MODE_CONNECTOR_DisplayPort &&
> + pdata->comms_enabled)
> + return 0;
> +
I don't understand this part of the patch. You're basically making
suspend/resume a no-op for the DP case? I don't think that's right...
First, I don't _think_ you need it, right? ...since "detect" is
already grabbing the pm_runtime reference this shouldn't be needed
from a correctness point of view.
Second, if you're looking to eventually make the interrupt work, I
don't think this is the right first step. I think in previous
discussions about this it was agreed that if we wanted the interrupt
to work then we should just do a "pm_runtime_get_sync()" before
enabling the interrupt and then a "pm_runtime_put()" after disabling
it. That'll keep things from suspending.
Does that sound correct, or did I goof up on anything?
-Doug
