linux-kernel - [PATCH v3 14/16] drm/panel-simple-edp: Fix "prepare_to

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20210901131531.v3.14.Ia8288d36df4b12770af59ae3ff73ef7e08fb4e2e@changeid>
Date:   Wed,  1 Sep 2021 13:19:32 -0700
From:   Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Cc:     Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Linus W <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Steev Klimaszewski <steev@...i.org>,
        Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
        Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v3 14/16] drm/panel-simple-edp: Fix "prepare_to_enable" if panel doesn't handle HPD

While cleaning up the descriptions of the delay for eDP panels I
realized that we'd have a bug if any panels need the
"prepare_to_enable" but HPD handling isn't happening in the panel
driver. Let's put in a stopgap to at least make us not violate
timings. This is not perfectly optimal but trying to do better is
hard. At the moment only 2 panels specify this delay and only 30 ms is
at stake. These panels are also currently hooked up with "hpd-gpios"
so effectively this "fix" is just a theoretical fix and won't actually
do anything for any devices currently supported in mainline.

Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
---

Changes in v3:
- Fix "prepare_to_enable" patch new for v3.

 drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-simple-edp.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-simple-edp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-simple-edp.c
index 762589ef66c3..5d58dc25ddf5 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-simple-edp.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-simple-edp.c
@@ -508,12 +508,32 @@ static int panel_edp_prepare(struct drm_panel *panel)
 static int panel_edp_enable(struct drm_panel *panel)
 {
 	struct panel_edp *p = to_panel_edp(panel);
+	unsigned int delay;
 
 	if (p->enabled)
 		return 0;
 
-	if (p->desc->delay.enable)
-		msleep(p->desc->delay.enable);
+	delay = p->desc->delay.enable;
+
+	/*
+	 * If there is a "prepare_to_enable" delay then that's supposed to be
+	 * the delay from HPD going high until we can turn the backlight on.
+	 * However, we can only count this if HPD is handled by the panel
+	 * driver, not if it goes to a dedicated pin on the controller.
+	 * If we aren't handling the HPD pin ourselves then the best we
+	 * can do is assume that HPD went high immediately before we were
+	 * called (and link training took zero time).
+	 *
+	 * NOTE: if we ever end up in this "if" statement then we're
+	 * guaranteed that the panel_edp_wait() call below will do no delay.
+	 * It already handles that case, though, so we don't need any special
+	 * code for it.
+	 */
+	if (p->desc->delay.prepare_to_enable && !p->hpd_gpio && !p->no_hpd)
+		delay = max(delay, p->desc->delay.prepare_to_enable);
+
+	if (delay)
+		msleep(delay);
 
 	panel_edp_wait(p->prepared_time, p->desc->delay.prepare_to_enable);
 
-- 
2.33.0.259.gc128427fd7-goog