On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 03:43:36PM +, Wentland, Harry wrote:
> DRM actually bumped this to 32 due to an issue with a Dell 4k display.
As I feared there is a retry counter higher in the code. My bad.
> It depends. I wouldn't call one or the other more correct. I seem to remember
> that the DP
On 2019-02-01 5:55 p.m., sylvain.bertr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 09:20:56PM +, Wentland, Harry wrote:
>> DRM's AUX code uses usleep_range in drm_dp_dpcd_access.
>
> My bad, forgot about the usleep_range switch. That said AUX_RETRY_INTERVAL is
> 500 us, with a usleep_range t
On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 09:20:56PM +, Wentland, Harry wrote:
> DRM's AUX code uses usleep_range in drm_dp_dpcd_access.
My bad, forgot about the usleep_range switch. That said AUX_RETRY_INTERVAL is
500 us, with a usleep_range top bound of 600 us.
Then, it would mean DC DP timeout retries would
On 2019-02-01 3:47 p.m., sylvain.bertr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 08:08:30PM +, sylvain.bertr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Do you mean non-DC displayport related code is already using udelay instead
>> of msleep on linux?
>
> I grep-ed amdgpu displayport atombios code, got udela
On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 08:08:30PM +, sylvain.bertr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Do you mean non-DC displayport related code is already using udelay instead
> of msleep on linux?
I grep-ed amdgpu displayport atombios code, got udelay(400) only.
Did the same on drm *_dp_* files, got similar udelays wi
On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 07:16:17PM +, Wentland, Harry wrote:
> On 2019-02-01 12:31 p.m., sylvain.bertr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 10:28:13AM -0500, Bhawanpreet Lakha wrote:
> >> From: John Barberiz
> >> [How]
> >> msleep is inaccurate for small values. Used udelay
> >> ins
On 2019-02-01 12:31 p.m., sylvain.bertr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 10:28:13AM -0500, Bhawanpreet Lakha wrote:
>> From: John Barberiz
>> [How]
>> msleep is inaccurate for small values. Used udelay
>> instead for accuracy.
>
> Hi,
>
> Should it be the case for non-DC displayport
On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 10:28:13AM -0500, Bhawanpreet Lakha wrote:
> From: John Barberiz
> [How]
> msleep is inaccurate for small values. Used udelay
> instead for accuracy.
Hi,
Should it be the case for non-DC displayport code too?
regards,
--
Sylvain
From: John Barberiz
[Why]
"IRQ_HPD Pulse Length Test" DP compliance test
fails. Test complains that certain DPCD registers
are not read within 100 ms.
[How]
msleep is inaccurate for small values. Used udelay
instead for accuracy.
Change-Id: I4990fc56c7632fba373f2dbf64ac803d64619529
Signed-off-b
