Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-123857-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1711656246-3483-1-git-send-email-quic_khsieh@quicinc.com>
 <1711656246-3483-2-git-send-email-quic_khsieh@quicinc.com>
 <55debb0a-c7af-ef71-c49a-414c7ab4f59d@quicinc.com> <CAE-0n503FwcwreZ14MMKgdzu8QybWYtMdLOKasiCwmE8pCJOSw@mail.gmail.com>
 <23de89e9-3ef3-c52d-7abf-93dc2dbb51a4@quicinc.com> <CAA8EJppEWXnsQzDD1tdNuMb1ijEVtE7LQct9jt1fwVwMd8ch_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <27cadd17-10a3-3b8c-2b29-6698ccdce531@quicinc.com>
In-Reply-To: <27cadd17-10a3-3b8c-2b29-6698ccdce531@quicinc.com>
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 02:10:25 +0200
Message-ID: <CAA8EJpqYVDG9pBj39m40rPwUNgE7x07HfCt6C3yaMN7eOaWk6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] drm/msm/dp: use dp_hpd_plug_handle() and
 dp_hpd_unplug_handle() directly
To: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com>
Cc: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>, Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>, 
	Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>, Kuogee Hsieh <quic_khsieh@quicinc.com>, abel.vesa@linaro.org, 
	agross@kernel.org, airlied@gmail.com, daniel@ffwll.ch, dianders@chromium.org, 
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, robdclark@gmail.com, sean@poorly.run, 
	vkoul@kernel.org, quic_jesszhan@quicinc.com, quic_sbillaka@quicinc.com, 
	marijn.suijten@somainline.org, freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org, 
	linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 at 01:42, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/28/2024 3:50 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 at 23:21, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 3/28/2024 1:58 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >>> Quoting Abhinav Kumar (2024-03-28 13:24:34)
> >>>> + Johan and Bjorn for FYI
> >>>>
> >>>> On 3/28/2024 1:04 PM, Kuogee Hsieh wrote:
> >>>>> For internal HPD case, hpd_event_thread is created to handle HPD
> >>>>> interrupts generated by HPD block of DP controller. It converts
> >>>>> HPD interrupts into events and executed them under hpd_event_thread
> >>>>> context. For external HPD case, HPD events is delivered by way of
> >>>>> dp_bridge_hpd_notify() under thread context. Since they are executed
> >>>>> under thread context already, there is no reason to hand over those
> >>>>> events to hpd_event_thread. Hence dp_hpd_plug_handle() and
> >>>>> dp_hpd_unplug_hanlde() are called directly at dp_bridge_hpd_notify().
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Kuogee Hsieh <quic_khsieh@quicinc.com>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>>     drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c | 5 +++--
> >>>>>     1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Fixes: 542b37efc20e ("drm/msm/dp: Implement hpd_notify()")
> >>>
> >>> Is this a bug fix or an optimization? The commit text doesn't tell me.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I would say both.
> >>
> >> optimization as it avoids the need to go through the hpd_event thread
> >> processing.
> >>
> >> bug fix because once you go through the hpd event thread processing it
> >> exposes and often breaks the already fragile hpd handling state machine
> >> which can be avoided in this case.
> >
> > Please add a description for the particular issue that was observed
> > and how it is fixed by the patch.
> >
> > Otherwise consider there to be an implicit NAK for all HPD-related
> > patches unless it is a series that moves link training to the enable
> > path and drops the HPD state machine completely.
> >
> > I really mean it. We should stop beating a dead horse unless there is
> > a grave bug that must be fixed.
> >
>
> I think the commit message is explaining the issue well enough.
>
> This was not fixing any issue we saw to explain you the exact scenario
> of things which happened but this is just from code walkthrough.
>
> Like kuogee wrote, hpd event thread was there so handle events coming
> out of the hpd_isr for internal hpd cases. For the hpd_notify coming
> from pmic_glink or any other extnernal hpd cases, there is no need to
> put this through the hpd event thread because this will only make things
> worse of exposing the race conditions of the state machine.
>
> Moving link training to enable and removal of hpd event thread will be
> worked on but delaying obvious things we can fix does not make sense.

From the commit message this feels like an optimisation rather than a
fix. And granted the fragility of the HPD state machine, I'd prefer to
stay away from optimisations. As far as I understood from the history
of the last revert, we'd better make sure that HPD handling goes only
through the HPD event thread.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry