Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751743AbeACHOz convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT + 1 other); Wed, 3 Jan 2018 02:14:55 -0500 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:3562 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751205AbeACHOx (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Jan 2018 02:14:53 -0500 X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.45,500,1508828400"; d="scan'208";a="16402641" From: Jani Nikula To: Chris Wilson , Rodrigo Vivi , Stefan =?utf-8?Q?Br=C3=BCns?= Cc: David Airlie , intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] drm/i915: Try EDID bitbanging on HDMI after failed read In-Reply-To: <151492106622.21495.250228197580562391@mail.alporthouse.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo References: <20180102191218.53beopvnxsg2etmg@intel.com> <151492106622.21495.250228197580562391@mail.alporthouse.com> Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2018 09:14:47 +0200 Message-ID: <87vagj2z2w.fsf@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: On Tue, 02 Jan 2018, Chris Wilson wrote: > Quoting Rodrigo Vivi (2018-01-02 19:12:18) >> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 10:34:54PM +0000, Stefan BrĂ¼ns wrote: >> > + edid = drm_get_edid(connector, i2c); >> > + >> > + if (!edid && !intel_gmbus_is_forced_bit(i2c)) { >> > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("HDMI GMBUS EDID read failed, retry using GPIO bit-banging\n"); >> > + intel_gmbus_force_bit(i2c, true); >> > + edid = drm_get_edid(connector, i2c); >> > + intel_gmbus_force_bit(i2c, false); >> > + } >> >> Approach seems fine for this case. >> I just wonder what would be the risks of forcing this bit and edid read when nothing is present on the other end? > > Should be no more risky than using GMBUS as the bit-banging is the > underlying HW protocol; it should just be adding an extra delay to > the disconnected probe. Offset against the chance that it fixes > detection of borderline devices. > > I would say that given the explanation above, the question is why not > apply it universally? (Bonus points for including the explanation as > comments.) I'm wondering, is gmbus too fast for the adapters, does gmbus generally have different timing for the ack/nak as described in the commit message than bit banging, or are the adapters just plain buggy? Do we have any control over gmbus timings (don't have the time to peruse the bpsec just now)? BR, Jani. > -Chris > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center