Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: Remove the mystery
 delay
To:     Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
        Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
        Sandeep Panda <spanda@codeaurora.org>
Cc:     linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>,
        jsanka@codeaurora.org, ryandcase@chromium.org,
        Archit Taneja <architt@codeaurora.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
        David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>
From:   Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@samsung.com>
Message-ID: <f3f86ecf-0d97-1b6b-e638-1780fef929f4@samsung.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 Oct 2018 10:03:24 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
        Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20181025222134.174583-4-dianders@chromium.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
CMS-TYPE: 201P
References: <20181025222134.174583-1-dianders@chromium.org>
        <CGME20181025222215epcas4p23fe857a510ce3d42d69bddc363f96978@epcas4p2.samsung.com>
        <20181025222134.174583-4-dianders@chromium.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 26.10.2018 00:21, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> Let's solve the mystery of commit bf1178c98930 ("drm/bridge:
> ti-sn65dsi86: Add mystery delay to enable()").  Specifically the
> reason we needed that mystery delay is that we weren't paying
> attention to HPD.
>
> Looking at the datasheet for the same panel that was tested for the
> original commit, I see there's a timing "t3" that times from power on
> to the aux channel being operational.  This time is specced as 0 - 200
> ms.  The datasheet says that the aux channel is operational at exactly
> the same time that HPD is asserted.
>
> Scoping the signals on this board showed that HPD was asserted 84 ms
> after power was asserted.  That very closely matches the magic 70 ms
> delay that we had.  ...and actually, in my testing the 70 ms wasn't
> quite enough of a delay and some percentage of the time the display
> didn't come up until I bumped it to 100 ms (presumably 84 ms would
> have worked too).
>
> To solve this, we tried to hook up the HPD signal in the bridge.
> ...but in doing so we found that that the bridge didn't report that
> HPD was asserted until ~280 ms after we powered it (!).  This is
> explained by looking at the sn65dsi86 datasheet section "8.4.5.1 HPD
> (Hot Plug/Unplug Detection)".  Reading there we see that the bridge
> isn't even intended to report HPD until 100 ms after it's asserted.
> ...but that would have left us at 184 ms.  The extra 100 ms
> (presumably) comes from this part in the datasheet:
>
>> The HPD state machine operates off an internal ring oscillator. The
>> ring oscillator frequency will vary [ ... ]. The min/max range in
>> the HPD State Diagram refers to the possible times based off
>> variation in the ring oscillator frequency.
> Given that the 280 ms we'll end up delaying if we hook up HPD is
> _slower_ than the 200 ms we could just hardcode, for now we'll solve
> the problem by just hardcoding a 200 ms delay in the panel driver
> using the patch in this series ("drm/panel: simple: Support panels
> with HPD where HPD isn't connected").
>
> If we later find a panel that needs to use this bridge where we need
> HPD then we'll have to come up with some new code to handle it.  Given
> the silly debouncing in the bridge chip, though, it seems unlikely.
>
> One last note is that I tried to solve this through another way: In
> ti_sn_bridge_enable() I tried to use various combinations of
> dp_dpcd_writeb() and dp_dpcd_readb() to detect when the aux channel
> was up.  In theory that would let me detect _exactly_ when I could
> continue and do link training.  Unfortunately even if I did an aux
> transfer w/out waiting I couldn't see any errors.  Possibly I could
> keep looping over link training until it came back with success, but
> that seemed a little overly hacky to me.
>
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
> Reviewed-by: Sean Paul <sean@poorly.run>
Reviewed-by: Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@samsung.com>

 --
Regards
Andrzej