Message ID | 1412144353-13114-7-git-send-email-yj44.cho@samsung.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New, archived |
Headers | show |
On 2014? 10? 01? 15:19, YoungJun Cho wrote: > The drm_helper_hpd_irq_event() does dpms control and panel is > initialized and displayed on by it. > So should register TE irq handler(exynos_dsi_te_irq_handler()) > beforehand. This patch also includes some codes not relevant to register TE irq handler before drm_helper_hpd_irq_event call. How about separating this patch into two patches? And below is my comment. Thanks, Inki Dae > > Signed-off-by: YoungJun Cho <yj44.cho@samsung.com> > Acked-by: Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> > Acked-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@samsung.com> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_dsi.c | 19 ++++++++----------- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_dsi.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_dsi.c > index 24741d8..ded69df 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_dsi.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_dsi.c > @@ -1143,6 +1143,7 @@ static int exynos_dsi_init(struct exynos_dsi *dsi) > static int exynos_dsi_register_te_irq(struct exynos_dsi *dsi) > { > int ret; > + int te_gpio_irq; > > dsi->te_gpio = of_get_named_gpio(dsi->panel_node, "te-gpios", 0); > if (!gpio_is_valid(dsi->te_gpio)) { > @@ -1157,14 +1158,10 @@ static int exynos_dsi_register_te_irq(struct exynos_dsi *dsi) > goto out; > } > > - /* > - * This TE GPIO IRQ should not be set to IRQ_NOAUTOEN, because panel > - * calls drm_panel_init() first then calls mipi_dsi_attach() in probe(). > - * It means that te_gpio is invalid when exynos_dsi_enable_irq() is > - * called by drm_panel_init() before panel is attached. > - */ > - ret = request_threaded_irq(gpio_to_irq(dsi->te_gpio), > - exynos_dsi_te_irq_handler, NULL, > + te_gpio_irq = gpio_to_irq(dsi->te_gpio); > + > + irq_set_status_flags(te_gpio_irq, IRQ_NOAUTOEN); I think with IRQ_NOAUTOEN, te irq wouldn't be enabled automatically. So shouldn't we call enable_irq() and disable_irq() somewhere? > + ret = request_threaded_irq(te_gpio_irq, exynos_dsi_te_irq_handler, NULL, > IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING, "TE", dsi); > if (ret) { > dev_err(dsi->dev, "request interrupt failed with %d\n", ret); > @@ -1195,9 +1192,6 @@ static int exynos_dsi_host_attach(struct mipi_dsi_host *host, > dsi->mode_flags = device->mode_flags; > dsi->panel_node = device->dev.of_node; > > - if (dsi->connector.dev) > - drm_helper_hpd_irq_event(dsi->connector.dev); > - > /* > * This is a temporary solution and should be made by more generic way. > * > @@ -1211,6 +1205,9 @@ static int exynos_dsi_host_attach(struct mipi_dsi_host *host, > return ret; > } > > + if (dsi->connector.dev) > + drm_helper_hpd_irq_event(dsi->connector.dev); > + > return 0; > } > >
Hi Inki, On 11/14/2014 10:49 AM, Inki Dae wrote: > On 2014? 10? 01? 15:19, YoungJun Cho wrote: >> The drm_helper_hpd_irq_event() does dpms control and panel is >> initialized and displayed on by it. >> So should register TE irq handler(exynos_dsi_te_irq_handler()) >> beforehand. > > This patch also includes some codes not relevant to register TE irq > handler before drm_helper_hpd_irq_event call. How about separating this > patch into two patches? > > And below is my comment. > > Thanks, > Inki Dae > >> >> Signed-off-by: YoungJun Cho <yj44.cho@samsung.com> >> Acked-by: Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> >> Acked-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@samsung.com> >> --- >> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_dsi.c | 19 ++++++++----------- >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_dsi.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_dsi.c >> index 24741d8..ded69df 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_dsi.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_dsi.c >> @@ -1143,6 +1143,7 @@ static int exynos_dsi_init(struct exynos_dsi *dsi) >> static int exynos_dsi_register_te_irq(struct exynos_dsi *dsi) >> { >> int ret; >> + int te_gpio_irq; >> >> dsi->te_gpio = of_get_named_gpio(dsi->panel_node, "te-gpios", 0); >> if (!gpio_is_valid(dsi->te_gpio)) { >> @@ -1157,14 +1158,10 @@ static int exynos_dsi_register_te_irq(struct exynos_dsi *dsi) >> goto out; >> } >> >> - /* >> - * This TE GPIO IRQ should not be set to IRQ_NOAUTOEN, because panel >> - * calls drm_panel_init() first then calls mipi_dsi_attach() in probe(). >> - * It means that te_gpio is invalid when exynos_dsi_enable_irq() is >> - * called by drm_panel_init() before panel is attached. >> - */ >> - ret = request_threaded_irq(gpio_to_irq(dsi->te_gpio), >> - exynos_dsi_te_irq_handler, NULL, >> + te_gpio_irq = gpio_to_irq(dsi->te_gpio); >> + >> + irq_set_status_flags(te_gpio_irq, IRQ_NOAUTOEN); > > I think with IRQ_NOAUTOEN, te irq wouldn't be enabled automatically. So > shouldn't we call enable_irq() and disable_irq() somewhere? The te_gpio irq triggering is done by exynos_dsi_enable_irq() and exynos_dsi_disable_irq() like dsi irq. And I'll separate patch with others also. Thank you. Best regards YJ > >> + ret = request_threaded_irq(te_gpio_irq, exynos_dsi_te_irq_handler, NULL, >> IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING, "TE", dsi); >> if (ret) { >> dev_err(dsi->dev, "request interrupt failed with %d\n", ret); >> @@ -1195,9 +1192,6 @@ static int exynos_dsi_host_attach(struct mipi_dsi_host *host, >> dsi->mode_flags = device->mode_flags; >> dsi->panel_node = device->dev.of_node; >> >> - if (dsi->connector.dev) >> - drm_helper_hpd_irq_event(dsi->connector.dev); >> - >> /* >> * This is a temporary solution and should be made by more generic way. >> * >> @@ -1211,6 +1205,9 @@ static int exynos_dsi_host_attach(struct mipi_dsi_host *host, >> return ret; >> } >> >> + if (dsi->connector.dev) >> + drm_helper_hpd_irq_event(dsi->connector.dev); >> + >> return 0; >> } >> >> > >
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_dsi.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_dsi.c index 24741d8..ded69df 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_dsi.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_dsi.c @@ -1143,6 +1143,7 @@ static int exynos_dsi_init(struct exynos_dsi *dsi) static int exynos_dsi_register_te_irq(struct exynos_dsi *dsi) { int ret; + int te_gpio_irq; dsi->te_gpio = of_get_named_gpio(dsi->panel_node, "te-gpios", 0); if (!gpio_is_valid(dsi->te_gpio)) { @@ -1157,14 +1158,10 @@ static int exynos_dsi_register_te_irq(struct exynos_dsi *dsi) goto out; } - /* - * This TE GPIO IRQ should not be set to IRQ_NOAUTOEN, because panel - * calls drm_panel_init() first then calls mipi_dsi_attach() in probe(). - * It means that te_gpio is invalid when exynos_dsi_enable_irq() is - * called by drm_panel_init() before panel is attached. - */ - ret = request_threaded_irq(gpio_to_irq(dsi->te_gpio), - exynos_dsi_te_irq_handler, NULL, + te_gpio_irq = gpio_to_irq(dsi->te_gpio); + + irq_set_status_flags(te_gpio_irq, IRQ_NOAUTOEN); + ret = request_threaded_irq(te_gpio_irq, exynos_dsi_te_irq_handler, NULL, IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING, "TE", dsi); if (ret) { dev_err(dsi->dev, "request interrupt failed with %d\n", ret); @@ -1195,9 +1192,6 @@ static int exynos_dsi_host_attach(struct mipi_dsi_host *host, dsi->mode_flags = device->mode_flags; dsi->panel_node = device->dev.of_node; - if (dsi->connector.dev) - drm_helper_hpd_irq_event(dsi->connector.dev); - /* * This is a temporary solution and should be made by more generic way. * @@ -1211,6 +1205,9 @@ static int exynos_dsi_host_attach(struct mipi_dsi_host *host, return ret; } + if (dsi->connector.dev) + drm_helper_hpd_irq_event(dsi->connector.dev); + return 0; }