Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220815093905.134164-1-hsinyi@chromium.org> <CAD=FV=XYNKF8q1mttru_J188pYMjSphQsEfQAO1Bt7GvjJRKXw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJMQK-gjg9evLY3oP5rgaGoRdQQTLqnK2-FChaabJTCxLTTmYA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJMQK-gjg9evLY3oP5rgaGoRdQQTLqnK2-FChaabJTCxLTTmYA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Rock Chiu <rock.chiu@paradetech.corp-partner.google.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 Aug 2022 11:19:06 +0800
Message-ID: <CAMuczyUH1tefU_4+dx495_5kdrxRdA3pmXS-eyjzMCcYFfjNXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/bridge: ps8640: Add double reset T4 and T5 to
 power-on sequence
To:     Hsin-Yi Wang <hsinyi@chromium.org>
Cc:     Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
        Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@intel.com>,
        Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>,
        Robert Foss <robert.foss@linaro.org>,
        Laurent Pinchart <Laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>,
        Jonas Karlman <jonas@kwiboo.se>,
        Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@gmail.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

How does T4/T5  impact the real case? We talked previously the T4/T5
shouldn't cause user impact.
Do we have testing data from ODM?

Rock Chiu

Hsin-Yi Wang <hsinyi@chromium.org> =E6=96=BC 2022=E5=B9=B48=E6=9C=8818=E6=
=97=A5 =E9=80=B1=E5=9B=9B =E4=B8=8A=E5=8D=8810:43=E5=AF=AB=E9=81=93=EF=BC=
=9A
>
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 6:54 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wro=
te:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 2:39 AM Hsin-Yi Wang <hsinyi@chromium.org> wrot=
e:
> > >
> > > The double reset power-on sequence is a workaround for the hardware
> > > flaw in some chip that SPI Clock output glitch and cause internal MPU
> > > unable to read firmware correctly. The sequence is suggested in ps864=
0
> > > application note.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Hsin-Yi Wang <hsinyi@chromium.org>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/parade-ps8640.c | 5 +++++
> > >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/parade-ps8640.c b/drivers/gpu/drm=
/bridge/parade-ps8640.c
> > > index 49107a6cdac18..d7483c13c569b 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/parade-ps8640.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/parade-ps8640.c
> > > @@ -375,6 +375,11 @@ static int __maybe_unused ps8640_resume(struct d=
evice *dev)
> > >         gpiod_set_value(ps_bridge->gpio_reset, 1);
> > >         usleep_range(2000, 2500);
> > >         gpiod_set_value(ps_bridge->gpio_reset, 0);
> > > +       /* Double reset for T4 and T5 */
> > > +       msleep(50);
> > > +       gpiod_set_value(ps_bridge->gpio_reset, 1);
> > > +       msleep(50);
> > > +       gpiod_set_value(ps_bridge->gpio_reset, 0);
> >
> > We really need another 100 ms here? ps8640 is already quite slow at
> > powering itself up and that has a real user impact. Why was it only
> > 2.5 ms for the first reset and 50 ms for the second?
> >
>
> The T4 and T5 are required by Parade. I'm wondering if they can
> shorten the 200ms below:
>
> /*
> * Mystery 200 ms delay for the "MCU to be ready". It's unclear if
> * this is truly necessary since the MCU will already signal that
> * things are "good to go" by signaling HPD on "gpio 9". See
> * _ps8640_wait_hpd_asserted(). For now we'll keep this mystery delay
> * just in case.
> */
> msleep(200);
>
> Does this have to wait 200ms? Can it shorten to 100 due to the
> additional 100ms from T4 and T5?
>
> > -Doug