[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aSjFZhZQLVb7czsh@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2025 23:40:54 +0200
From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Chia-Lin Kao (AceLan)" <acelan.kao@...onical.com>
Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>,
Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
Tvrtko Ursulin <tursulin@...ulin.net>,
David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>,
intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, intel-xe@...ts.freedesktop.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/dp: Add byte-by-byte fallback for broken USB-C
adapters
On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 12:44:06PM +0800, Chia-Lin Kao (AceLan) wrote:
> Some USB-C hubs and adapters have buggy firmware where multi-byte AUX
> reads from DPCD address 0x00000 consistently timeout, while single-byte
> reads from the same address work correctly.
>
> Known affected devices that exhibit this issue:
> - Lenovo USB-C to VGA adapter (VIA VL817 chipset)
> idVendor=17ef, idProduct=7217
> - Dell DA310 USB-C mobile adapter hub
> idVendor=413c, idProduct=c010
>
> Analysis of the failure pattern shows:
> - Single-byte probes to 0xf0000 (LTTPR) succeed
> - Single-byte probes to 0x00102 (TRAINING_AUX_RD_INTERVAL) succeed
> - 15-byte reads from 0x00000 (DPCD capabilities) timeout with -ETIMEDOUT
> - Retrying does not help - the failure is consistent across all attempts
I thought we changed that to the more sensible 16 bytes.
Anyone know what happened to that patch?
Anyways, does 16 bytes work better than 15 bytes?
>
> The issue appears to be a firmware bug in the AUX transaction handling
> that specifically affects multi-byte reads from the base DPCD address.
>
> Add a fallback mechanism that attempts byte-by-byte reading when the
> normal multi-byte drm_dp_read_dpcd_caps() fails. This workaround only
> activates for adapters that fail the standard read path, ensuring no
> impact on correctly functioning hardware.
>
> The byte-by-byte read uses drm_dp_dpcd_readb() to read each of the 15
> DPCD capability bytes individually, working around the firmware bug
> while maintaining compatibility with all other adapters.
>
> Tested with:
> - Lenovo USB-C to VGA adapter (VIA VL817) - now works with fallback
> - Dell DA310 USB-C hub - now works with fallback
> - Dell/Analogix Slimport adapter - continues to work with normal path
>
> Signed-off-by: Chia-Lin Kao (AceLan) <acelan.kao@...onical.com>
> ---
> .../drm/i915/display/intel_dp_link_training.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_link_training.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_link_training.c
> index aad5fe14962f..738a5bb4adb3 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_link_training.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_link_training.c
> @@ -213,6 +213,7 @@ static int intel_dp_init_lttpr(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, const u8 dpcd[DP_RECEI
> int intel_dp_read_dprx_caps(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, u8 dpcd[DP_RECEIVER_CAP_SIZE])
> {
> struct intel_display *display = to_intel_display(intel_dp);
> + int ret, i;
>
> if (intel_dp_is_edp(intel_dp))
> return 0;
> @@ -226,7 +227,25 @@ int intel_dp_read_dprx_caps(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, u8 dpcd[DP_RECEIVER_CAP_S
> DP_LT_TUNABLE_PHY_REPEATER_FIELD_DATA_STRUCTURE_REV))
> return -EIO;
>
> - if (drm_dp_read_dpcd_caps(&intel_dp->aux, dpcd))
> + ret = drm_dp_read_dpcd_caps(&intel_dp->aux, dpcd);
> + if (ret == 0)
> + return 0;
> +
> + /*
> + * Workaround for USB-C hubs/adapters with buggy firmware that fail
> + * multi-byte AUX reads from DPCD address 0x00000 but work with
> + * single-byte reads. Known affected devices:
> + * - Lenovo USB-C to VGA adapter (VIA VL817, idVendor=17ef, idProduct=7217)
> + * - Dell DA310 USB-C hub (idVendor=413c, idProduct=c010)
> + * Read the DPCD capabilities byte-by-byte as a fallback.
> + */
> + for (i = 0; i < DP_RECEIVER_CAP_SIZE; i++) {
> + ret = drm_dp_dpcd_readb(&intel_dp->aux, DP_DPCD_REV + i, &dpcd[i]);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return -EIO;
> + }
Doing this in i915 specific code doesn't make sense.
> +
> + if (dpcd[DP_DPCD_REV] == 0)
> return -EIO;
>
> return 0;
> --
> 2.43.0
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists