[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAE-0n50Z2pDGH+ncjQq-huDsn9jdN=1SfaaU+qw229nZpUVCDw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 12:51:59 -0700
From: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
To: Kuogee Hsieh <quic_khsieh@...cinc.com>, abel.vesa@...aro.org, agross@...nel.org,
airlied@...il.com, andersson@...nel.org, daniel@...ll.ch,
dianders@...omium.org, dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, robdclark@...il.com, sean@...rly.run,
vkoul@...nel.org
Cc: quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com, quic_jesszhan@...cinc.com,
quic_sbillaka@...cinc.com, marijn.suijten@...ainline.org,
freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] phy/qcom-qmp-combo: propagate correct return value at phy_power_on()
Quoting Kuogee Hsieh (2024-03-29 12:50:35)
> Currently qmp_combo_dp_power_on() always return 0 in regardless of
> return value of cfg->configure_dp_phy(). This patch propagate
> return value of cfg->configure_dp_phy() all the way back to caller.
Is this found via code inspection or because the phy is failing to power
on sometimes? I ask because I'm looking at a DP bug on Trogdor with
chromeos' v6.6 based kernel and wondering if this is related.
Also, is the call to phy_power_on() going to be checked in
the DP driver?
$ git grep -n phy_power_on -- drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/
drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_ctrl.c:1453: phy_power_on(phy);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists