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.
Yes, that is right. The delay is unnecessary with the recent changes. Like Dmitry rightly suggested, we will remove the delay in a separate commit.
-- With best wishes Dmitry