[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <24afa449-afe5-fdf4-0ad4-f2174e412569@quicinc.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 15:53:16 -0700
From: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>
To: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
CC: <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
<freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org>, <quic_jesszhan@...cinc.com>,
<quic_parellan@...cinc.com>, <andersson@...nel.org>,
<jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm: remove drm_bridge_hpd_disable() from
drm_bridge_connector_destroy()
Hi Laurent
On 9/19/2023 11:12 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Abhinav,
>
> Thank you for the patch.
>
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 10:48:12AM -0700, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
>> drm_bridge_hpd_enable()/drm_bridge_hpd_disable() callbacks call into
>> the respective driver's hpd_enable()/hpd_disable() ops. These ops control
>> the HPD enable/disable logic which in some cases like MSM can be a
>> dedicate hardware block to control the HPD.
>>
>> During probe_defer cases, a connector can be initialized and then later
>> destroyed till the probe is retried. During connector destroy in these
>> cases, the hpd_disable() callback gets called without a corresponding
>> hpd_enable() leading to an unbalanced state potentially causing even
>> a crash.
>>
>> This can be avoided by the respective drivers maintaining their own
>> state logic to ensure that a hpd_disable() without a corresponding
>> hpd_enable() just returns without doing anything.
>>
>> However, to have a generic fix it would be better to avoid the
>> hpd_disable() callback from the connector destroy path and let
>> the hpd_enable() / hpd_disable() balance be maintained by the
>> corresponding drm_bridge_connector_enable_hpd() /
>> drm_bridge_connector_disable_hpd() APIs which should get called by
>> drm_kms_helper_disable_hpd().
>
> The change makes sense to me, but I'm a bit worried this could introduce
> a regression by leaving HPD enabled in some cases.
>
> I agree that bridges shouldn't track the HPD state, it should be tracked
> by the core and the .enable_hpd() and .disable_hpd() operations should
> be balanced. Their documentation, however, doesn't clearly state this,
> and the documentation of the callers of these operations is also fairly
> unclear.
>
> Could you perhaps try to improve the documentation ? With that,
>
Yes, sure, Let me upload another patch to improve the documentation of
.enable_hpd(), .disable_hpd() and its callers.
> Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
>
> for this patch.
>
Thanks
Abhinav
>> changes in v2:
>> - minor change in commit text (Dmitry)
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge_connector.c | 6 ------
>> 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge_connector.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge_connector.c
>> index 1da93d5a1f61..c4dba39acfd8 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge_connector.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge_connector.c
>> @@ -187,12 +187,6 @@ static void drm_bridge_connector_destroy(struct drm_connector *connector)
>> struct drm_bridge_connector *bridge_connector =
>> to_drm_bridge_connector(connector);
>>
>> - if (bridge_connector->bridge_hpd) {
>> - struct drm_bridge *hpd = bridge_connector->bridge_hpd;
>> -
>> - drm_bridge_hpd_disable(hpd);
>> - }
>> -
>> drm_connector_unregister(connector);
>> drm_connector_cleanup(connector);
>>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists