Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.33 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.33;
Message-ID: <b489675d-e9de-4bca-9622-78545aa8606d@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 31 Oct 2023 17:07:39 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] drm/i915/dsi: Replace poking of CHV GPIOs behind
 the driver's back
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>,
        intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
        Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>,
        Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
        Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
References: <20231024155739.3861342-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <20231024155739.3861342-7-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <ZTfssxRsrDxhzSQ6@smile.fi.intel.com>
From:   Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZTfssxRsrDxhzSQ6@smile.fi.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi Andy,

On 10/24/23 18:11, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 06:57:38PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> It's a dirty hack in the driver that pokes GPIO registers behind
>> the driver's back. Moreoever it might be problematic as simultaneous
>> I/O may hang the system, see the commit 0bd50d719b00 ("pinctrl:
>> cherryview: prevent concurrent access to GPIO controllers") for
>> the details. Taking all this into consideration replace the hack
>> with proper GPIO APIs being used.
> 
> Ah, just realised that this won't work if it happens to request to GPIOs with
> the same index but different communities. I will fix that in v3, but will wait
> for Hans to test VLV and it might even work in most of the cases on CHV as it
> seems quite unlikely that the above mentioned assertion is going to happen in
> real life.

I have added patches 1-5 to my personal tree + a small debug patch on top
which logs when soc_exec_opaque_gpio() actually gets called.

So these patches will now get run every time I run some tests on
one my tablets.

I'll get back to you with testing results when I've found a device where
the new soc_exec_opaque_gpio() actually gets called.

As for the CHT support, I have not added that to my tree yet, I would
prefer to directly test the correct/fixed patch.

Regards,

Hans