On 25/04/2022 23:26, Stephen Boyd wrote:
Quoting Sankeerth Billakanti (QUIC) (2022-04-25 02:39:43)
Hi Stephen,
Quoting Sankeerth Billakanti (2022-04-22 02:11:03)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c index d7a19d6..055681a 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c
Some nitpicks
Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd swboyd@chromium.org
@@ -1508,7 +1509,8 @@ void msm_dp_irq_postinstall(struct msm_dp *dp_display)
dp_hpd_event_setup(dp);
dp_add_event(dp, EV_HPD_INIT_SETUP, 0, 100);
if (!dp_display->is_edp)dp_add_event(dp, EV_HPD_INIT_SETUP, 0, 100);Did it turn out that in fact DP isn't ready still to setup even after delaying the irq?
The host_init, config_hpd, phy_init and enable_irq are happening in modeset_init already for eDP. So, I am not scheduling the EV_HPD_INIT_SETUP event for eDP. I am not modifying the delay for DP.
Cool. That didn't answer my question though. Why does DP still need the delay? I thought recent changes made it unnecessary.
I'd say that if it is not necessary, it should be changed in the separate commit. The question is valid nevertheless.