linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 4/6] drm/panel-edp: Take advantage of is_hpd_asserted() in struct drm_dp

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: <CAA8EJppyBTDeFVztS2rTihAwEjJdmJf1Md-Qa3x3MijVvbzSUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 16 Apr 2022 01:11:54 +0300
From:   Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc:     dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Robert Foss <robert.foss@...aro.org>,
        Hsin-Yi Wang <hsinyi@...omium.org>,
        Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>,
        Sankeerth Billakanti <quic_sbillaka@...cinc.com>,
        Philip Chen <philipchen@...omium.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/6] drm/panel-edp: Take advantage of
 is_hpd_asserted() in struct drm_dp_aux

On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 at 00:17, Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 5:51 PM Dmitry Baryshkov
> <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 09/04/2022 05:36, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> > > Let's add support for being able to read the HPD pin even if it's
> > > hooked directly to the controller. This will allow us to get more
> > > accurate delays also lets us take away the waiting in the AUX transfer
> > > functions of the eDP controller drivers.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
> > > ---
> > >
> > >   drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-edp.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > >   1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-edp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-edp.c
> > > index 1732b4f56e38..4a143eb9544b 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-edp.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-edp.c
> > > @@ -417,6 +417,19 @@ static int panel_edp_get_hpd_gpio(struct device *dev, struct panel_edp *p)
> > >       return 0;
> > >   }
> > >
> > > +static bool panel_edp_can_read_hpd(struct panel_edp *p)
> > > +{
> > > +     return !p->no_hpd && (p->hpd_gpio || (p->aux && p->aux->is_hpd_asserted));
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static bool panel_edp_read_hpd(struct panel_edp *p)
> > > +{
> > > +     if (p->hpd_gpio)
> > > +             return gpiod_get_value_cansleep(p->hpd_gpio);
> > > +
> > > +     return p->aux->is_hpd_asserted(p->aux);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > >   static int panel_edp_prepare_once(struct panel_edp *p)
> > >   {
> > >       struct device *dev = p->base.dev;
> > > @@ -441,13 +454,21 @@ static int panel_edp_prepare_once(struct panel_edp *p)
> > >       if (delay)
> > >               msleep(delay);
> > >
> > > -     if (p->hpd_gpio) {
> > > +     if (panel_edp_can_read_hpd(p)) {
> > >               if (p->desc->delay.hpd_absent)
> > >                       hpd_wait_us = p->desc->delay.hpd_absent * 1000UL;
> > >               else
> > >                       hpd_wait_us = 2000000;
> > >
> > > -             err = readx_poll_timeout(gpiod_get_value_cansleep, p->hpd_gpio,
> > > +             /*
> > > +              * Extra max delay, mostly to account for ps8640. ps8640
> > > +              * is crazy and the bridge chip driver itself has over 200 ms
> > > +              * of delay if it needs to do the pm_runtime resume of the
> > > +              * bridge chip to read the HPD.
> > > +              */
> > > +             hpd_wait_us += 3000000;
> >
> > I think this should come in a separate commit and ideally this should be
> > configurable somehow. Other hosts wouldn't need such 'additional' delay.
> >
> > With this change removed:
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
>
> What would you think about changing the API slightly? Instead of
> is_hpd_asserted(), we change it to wait_hpd_asserted() and it takes a
> timeout in microseconds. If you pass 0 for the timeout the function is
> defined to behave the same as is_hpd_asserted() today--AKA a single
> poll of the line.

This might work. Can you check it, please?

BTW: are these changes dependent on the first part of the patchset? It
might be worth splitting the patchset into two parts.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry