lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v6 03/15] drm/bridge: tc358767: Simplify polling in tc_link_training()
On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:27 AM Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Andrey,
>
> On 19/06/2019 08:27, Andrey Smirnov wrote:
>
> > @@ -748,22 +748,19 @@ static int tc_set_video_mode(struct tc_data *tc,
> >
> > static int tc_wait_link_training(struct tc_data *tc)
> > {
> > - u32 timeout = 1000;
> > u32 value;
> > int ret;
> >
> > - do {
> > - udelay(1);
> > - tc_read(DP0_LTSTAT, &value);
> > - } while ((!(value & LT_LOOPDONE)) && (--timeout));
> > -
> > - if (timeout == 0) {
> > + ret = tc_poll_timeout(tc, DP0_LTSTAT, LT_LOOPDONE,
> > + LT_LOOPDONE, 1, 1000);
>
> This seems to break DP at least with some monitors for me. I think it's just a timeout problem, as
> increasing the values helps.
>
> Using ktime, I can see that during link training, the first call takes ~2ms, the second ~7ms. I
> think this worked before, as udelay(1) takes much longer than 1 us.
>
> We have 1000us limit in a few other places too, which I don't see causing issues, but might need
> increasing too.
>
> Also, 1us sleep_us may be a bit too small to be sane. If the loops take milliseconds, probably 100us
> or even more would make sense.
>
> This didn't cause any issues with your display?
>

Hmm, not that I know of. Your reasoning makes sense, though. If
increasing the timeout helps, I am all for it. And, yeah, I agree,
this is probably not the only place that could use an increased
timeout.

Thanks,
Andrey Smirnov

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-05 17:06    [W:0.060 / U:6.560 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site