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;
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org A66396029B
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] drm/panel: truly: Add additional delay after pulling
 down reset gpio
To:     Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@free.fr>, airlied@linux.ie,
        thierry.reding@gmail.com, daniel@ffwll.ch
Cc:     Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        MSM <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20190527102616.28315-1-vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org>
 <7dfcf294-6ab1-c1ce-352d-dfdeec4347af@free.fr>
From:   Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org>
Message-ID: <e260c253-66af-cb09-f685-8bf62f0d5547@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Wed, 29 May 2019 11:27:10 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7dfcf294-6ab1-c1ce-352d-dfdeec4347af@free.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 5/28/2019 2:13 PM, Marc Gonzalez wrote:
> On 27/05/2019 12:26, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>
>> MTP SDM845 panel seems to need additional delay to bring panel
>> to a workable state. Running modetest without this change displays
>> blurry artifacts.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org>
>> ---
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-truly-nt35597.c | 1 +
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-truly-nt35597.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-truly-nt35597.c
>> index fc2a66c53db4..aa7153fd3be4 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-truly-nt35597.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-truly-nt35597.c
>> @@ -280,6 +280,7 @@ static int truly_35597_power_on(struct truly_nt35597 *ctx)
>>   	gpiod_set_value(ctx->reset_gpio, 1);
>>   	usleep_range(10000, 20000);
>>   	gpiod_set_value(ctx->reset_gpio, 0);
>> +	usleep_range(10000, 20000);
> I'm not sure usleep_range() makes sense with these values.
>
> AFAIU, usleep_range() is typically used for sub-jiffy sleeps, and is based
> on HRT to generate an interrupt.
>
> Once we get into jiffy granularity, it seems to me msleep() is good enough.
> IIUC, it would piggy-back on the jiffy timer interrupt.
>
> In short, why not just use msleep(10); ?

I am just maintaining the symmetry across older code.

Thanks
Vivek
>
> Regards.