Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-108124-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240319111432.1.I521dad0693cc24fe4dd14cba0c7048d94f5b6b41@changeid>
 <CAA8EJpq-NjmYkWHAVsuP5jA_Z7Xx0jCiqEDgU-0ni9BCg7Opuw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2fa9a262-de60-2c1e-9ac3-1e478ec65bb8@quicinc.com> <CAA8EJpqg+Di7PH2bmQ6uMidD3MhQ+N7w-1MWWEOBrH5DbsWSTA@mail.gmail.com>
 <977f647a-fc30-d9c9-f973-fd8bd9a4020a@quicinc.com>
In-Reply-To: <977f647a-fc30-d9c9-f973-fd8bd9a4020a@quicinc.com>
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 22:54:59 +0200
Message-ID: <CAA8EJpoAwRKbHxVhi0q9koSUWFPcD4sP=F36r+rYsrtbY0fLkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/dp: Clarify that wait_hpd_asserted() is not optional
 for panels
To: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com>
Cc: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, 
	linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, Mikko Perttunen <mperttunen@nvidia.com>, 
	Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>, 
	Ankit Nautiyal <ankit.k.nautiyal@intel.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>, 
	David Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>, Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>, 
	Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>, Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 at 22:39, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/19/2024 1:16 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 at 21:02, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 3/19/2024 11:35 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 at 20:15, Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> In response to my patch removing the "wait for HPD" logic at the
> >>>> beginning of the MSM DP transfer() callback [1], we had some debate
> >>>> about what the "This is an optional function" meant in the
> >>>> documentation of the wait_hpd_asserted() callback. Let's clarify.
> >>>>
> >>>> As talked about in the MSM DP patch [1], before wait_hpd_asserted()
> >>>> was introduced there was no great way for panel drivers to wait for
> >>>> HPD in the case that the "built-in" HPD signal was used. Panel drivers
> >>>> could only wait for HPD if a GPIO was used. At the time, we ended up
> >>>> just saying that if we were using the "built-in" HPD signal that DP
> >>>> AUX controllers needed to wait for HPD themselves at the beginning of
> >>>> their transfer() callback. The fact that the wait for HPD at the
> >>>> beginning of transfer() was awkward/problematic was the whole reason
> >>>> wait_hpd_asserted() was added.
> >>>>
> >>>> Let's make it obvious that if a DP AUX controller implements
> >>>> wait_hpd_asserted() that they don't need a loop waiting for HPD at the
> >>>> start of their transfer() function. We'll still allow DP controllers
> >>>> to work the old way but mark it as deprecated.
> >>>>
> >>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240315143621.v2.3.I535606f6d4f7e3e5588bb75c55996f61980183cd@changeid
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> I would consider changing the docs to say that implementing
> >>>> wait_hpd_asserted() is actually _required_ for any DP controllers that
> >>>> want to support eDP panels parented on the DP AUX bus. The issue is
> >>>> that one DP controller (tegra/dpaux.c, found by looking for those that
> >>>> include display/drm_dp_aux_bus.h) does populate the DP AUX bus but
> >>>> doesn't implement wait_hpd_asserted(). I'm actually not sure how/if
> >>>> this work on tegra since I also don't see any delay loop for HPD in
> >>>> tegra's transfer() callback. For now, I've left wait_hpd_asserted() as
> >>>> optional and described the old/deprecated way things used to work
> >>>> before wait_hpd_asserted().
> >>>>
> >>>>    include/drm/display/drm_dp_helper.h | 8 +++++++-
> >>>>    1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/include/drm/display/drm_dp_helper.h b/include/drm/display/drm_dp_helper.h
> >>>> index a62fcd051d4d..b170efa1f5d2 100644
> >>>> --- a/include/drm/display/drm_dp_helper.h
> >>>> +++ b/include/drm/display/drm_dp_helper.h
> >>>> @@ -422,7 +422,13 @@ struct drm_dp_aux {
> >>>>            * @wait_hpd_asserted: wait for HPD to be asserted
> >>>>            *
> >>>>            * This is mainly useful for eDP panels drivers to wait for an eDP
> >>>> -        * panel to finish powering on. This is an optional function.
> >>>> +        * panel to finish powering on. It is optional for DP AUX controllers
> >>>> +        * to implement this function but required for DP AUX endpoints (panel
> >>>> +        * drivers) to call it after powering up but before doing AUX transfers.
> >>>> +        * If a DP AUX controller does not implement this function then it
> >>>> +        * may still support eDP panels that use the AUX controller's built-in
> >>>> +        * HPD signal by implementing a long wait for HPD in the transfer()
> >>>> +        * callback, though this is deprecated.
> >>>
> >>> It doesn't cover a valid case when the panel driver handles HPD signal
> >>> on its own.
> >>>
> >>
> >> This doc is only for wait_for_hpd_asserted(). If panel driver handles
> >> HPD signal on its own, this will not be called. Do we need a doc for that?
> >
> > This comment declares that this callback must be called by the panel
> > driver: '...but required for DP AUX endpoints [...] to call it after
> > powering up but before doing AUX transfers.'
> >
> > If we were to follow documentation changes from this patch, we'd have
> > to patch panel-edp to always call wait_for_hpd_asserted, even if HPD
> > GPIO is used. However this is not correct from my POV.
> >
>
> hmmm I dont mind explicitly saying "unless the panel can independently
> check the HPD state" but not required in my opinion because if panel was
> capable of checking the HPD gpio (its self-capable) why would it even
> call wait_for_hpd_asserted?

I'm fine with the proposed change. Doug?

>
> I will let you and Doug discuss this but fwiw, I am fine without this
> additional clarification. So the R-b stands with or without this
> additional clause.
>
> >>>>            *
> >>>>            * This function will efficiently wait for the HPD signal to be
> >>>>            * asserted. The `wait_us` parameter that is passed in says that we
> >>>> --
> >>>> 2.44.0.291.gc1ea87d7ee-goog
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >


-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry