On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 12:07 PM Jeffrey Hugo jhugo@codeaurora.org wrote:
On 7/1/2019 12:58 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 11:37 AM Jeffrey Hugo jhugo@codeaurora.org wrote:
On 6/30/2019 9:01 AM, Rob Clark wrote:
From: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org
Do an extra enable/disable cycle at init, to get the clks into disabled state in case bootloader left them enabled.
In case they were already enabled, the clk_prepare_enable() has no real effect, other than getting the enable_count/prepare_count into the right state so that we can disable clocks in the correct order. This way we avoid having stuck clocks when we later want to do a modeset and set the clock rates.
Signed-off-by: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org
drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c | 18 +++++++++++++++--- drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/pll/dsi_pll_10nm.c | 1 + 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/pll/dsi_pll_10nm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/pll/dsi_pll_10nm.c index aabab6311043..d0172d8db882 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/pll/dsi_pll_10nm.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/pll/dsi_pll_10nm.c @@ -354,6 +354,7 @@ static int dsi_pll_10nm_lock_status(struct dsi_pll_10nm *pll) if (rc) pr_err("DSI PLL(%d) lock failed, status=0x%08x\n", pll->id, status); +rc = 0; // HACK, this will fail if PLL already running..
Umm, why? Is this intentional?
I need to sort out a proper solution for this.. but PLL lock will fail if the clk is already running (which, in that case, is fine since it is already running and locked), which will cause the clk_enable to fail..
I guess there is some way that I can check that clk is already running and skip this check..
I'm sorry, but this makes no sense to me. What clock are we talking about here?
If the pll is locked, the the lock check should just drop through. If the pll cannot lock, you have an issue. I'm confused as to how any of the downstream clocks can actually be running if the pll isn't locked.
I feel like we are not yet on the same page about what situation you seem to be in. Can you describe in exacting detail?
So, I went back to check some of the kernel logs, and actually the case where we were hitting the PLL lock fail was -EPROBE_DEFER cases, so what was happening is the enable/disable cycle would succeed the first time, but then we'd -EPROBE_DEFER. Then after a suspend/resume cycle, we'd try again, but this time pll's were reset to power on state, and we weren't setting rate.
With the other patchset[1] I sent over the weekend, this should no longer be a problem so I can drop the hack.
BR, -R