On 16.06.2025 17:40, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 12/06/2025 09:31, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
>> On 12.06.2025 07:49, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>>> On 11/06/2025 13:45, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
>>>> On 05.06.2025 19:15, Aradhya Bhatia wrote:
>>>>> From: Aradhya Bhatia <a-bhat...@ti.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Move the bridge pre_enable call before crtc enable, and the bridge
>>>>> post_disable call after the crtc disable.
>>>>>
>>>>> The sequence of enable after this patch will look like:
>>>>>
>>>>> bridge[n]_pre_enable
>>>>> ...
>>>>> bridge[1]_pre_enable
>>>>>
>>>>> crtc_enable
>>>>> encoder_enable
>>>>>
>>>>> bridge[1]_enable
>>>>> ...
>>>>> bridge[n]_enable
>>>>>
>>>>> And, the disable sequence for the display pipeline will look like:
>>>>>
>>>>> bridge[n]_disable
>>>>> ...
>>>>> bridge[1]_disable
>>>>>
>>>>> encoder_disable
>>>>> crtc_disable
>>>>>
>>>>> bridge[1]_post_disable
>>>>> ...
>>>>> bridge[n]_post_disable
>>>>>
>>>>> The definition of bridge pre_enable hook says that,
>>>>> "The display pipe (i.e. clocks and timing signals) feeding this bridge
>>>>> will not yet be running when this callback is called".
>>>>>
>>>>> Since CRTC is also a source feeding the bridge, it should not be enabled
>>>>> before the bridges in the pipeline are pre_enabled. Fix that by
>>>>> re-ordering the sequence of bridge pre_enable and bridge post_disable.
>>>>>
>>>>> While at it, update the drm bridge API documentation as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Acked-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.barysh...@linaro.org>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkei...@ideasonboard.com>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmerm...@suse.de>
>>>>> Tested-by: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkei...@ideasonboard.com>
>>>>> Tested-by: Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverd...@siemens.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Aradhya Bhatia <a-bhat...@ti.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Aradhya Bhatia <aradhya.bha...@linux.dev>
>>>> This patch landed in today's linux-next as commit c9b1150a68d9
>>>> ("drm/atomic-helper: Re-order bridge chain pre-enable and
>>>> post-disable"). In my tests I found that it breaks booting of Samsung
>>>> Exynos 5420/5800 based Chromebooks (Peach-Pit and Peach-Pi). Both of
>>>> them use Exynos DRM with Exynos_DP sub-driver (Analogix DP) and EDP
>>>> panel. Booting stops at '[drm] Initialized exynos 1.1.0 for exynos-drm
>>>> on minor 0' message. On the other hand, the Samsung Exynos5250 based
>>>> Snow Chromebook boots fine, but it uses dp-lvds nxp,ptn3460 bridge and
>>>> lvds panel instead of edp panels. This looks like some sort of deadlock,
>>>> because if I disable FBDEV emulation, those boards boots fine and I'm
>>>> able to run modetest and enable the display. Also the DRM kernel logger
>>>> seems to be working fine, although I didn't check the screen output yet,
>>>> as I only have a remote access to those boards. I will investigate it
>>>> further and let You know.
>>> Thanks for the report. I was trying to understand the pipeline, but I'm
>>> a bit confused. Above you say Peach-Pit uses DP and EDP panel, but if I
>>> look at arch/arm/boot/dts/samsung/exynos5420-peach-pit.dts, it connects
>>> a dp->lvds bridge (parade,ps8625). Peach-Pi seems to connect to an eDP
>>> panel.
>>>
>>> Is the above correct? Do both Peach-Pi and Peach-Pit fail?
>> Yes, sorry, my fault. I much have checked the same (peach-pi) dts 2
>> times. Both Peach-Pi and Peach-Pit fails, while Snow works fine. All
>> three use the same Exynos DP (based on analogix dp) driver. I will try
>> to play a bit more with those boards in the afternoon, hopefully getting
>> some more hints where the issue is.
> Did you get a chance to test this more? Any hints what happens will help =)
I've spent some time debugging this issue, but so far I only got
something I don't really understand. This issue is somehow related with
the DP clock enabling and disabling, what is being done from
exynos_dp_poweron() and exynos_dp_poweroff() functions, which are called
from analogix_dp_resume() and analogix_dp_suspend(). The lockup happens
somewhere while registering the fbdev console, with console lock held,
what makes debugging much harder.
I've did some experiments with pm runtime of the analogix_dp_core driver
and increased autosuspend delay to 200 msec. This magically fixed the
issue, but I still see no direct calls to analogix_dp without proper pm
runtime guards.
Best regards
--
Marek Szyprowski, PhD
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
