Re: [PATCH 1/5] drm/bridge: allow hpd_notify() to suppress connector hotplug events

Dmitry Baryshkov <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.freedesktop.lists.dri-devel,org.infradead.lists.linux-amlogic,org.infradead.lists.linux-arm-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-arm-msm,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel
Message-ID <4qc3n3mwsonpzfxi3z2supslvlyat32xgsn7bnrstudtpitwri@enwxj4pkjexa>
On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 10:05:30AM +0800, Chaoyi Chen wrote:
> Hello Yongxing,
> 
> On 6/29/2026 10:48 PM, Yongxing Mou wrote:
> > The bridge connector framework currently invokes all bridge
> > hpd_notify() callbacks and unconditionally emits a connector hotplug
> > event afterwards.
> > 
> > However, not every HPD notification requires a userspace hotplug event.
> > 
> > In particular, DP MST bridges may use hpd_notify() to propagate HPD and
> > IRQ notifications through the bridge chain while the actual hotplug
> > handling is performed by the DRM DP MST core. Connector creation,
> > removal and userspace hotplug events are already managed by the MST
> > topology framework.
> > 
> > Allow hpd_notify() implementations to suppress the bridge connector
> > hotplug event by introducing a bool *send_hotplug parameter. Drivers
> > can clear this flag when HPD processing should not result in a
> > connector hotplug notification.
> > 
> > A NULL pointer indicates that hotplug suppression is not supported by
> > the caller, such as the connector detect polling path.
> >
> 
> Should we add an API to distinguish between regular HPD events and
> the IRQ-only notifications you mentioned?

It well might be so, rendering the first series listed as a dependency
as invalid (then it's good that we didn't land it up to now). I have
been torn between adding a new API and extending the HPD events. I
ended up choosing the latter one, but I might be wrong :-)

My idea was that both USB-C AltModes and native DP deliver both
mechanisms in the same way. If we add a separate API, we have to take
care of possible interactions between those two (i.e. how should we
react to IRQ_HPD, if we already have a HPD event being processed in
flight)?

> 
> I've recently seen similar approaches. For example, this patch[0] adds
> handling for internal events, which I think is somewhat similar to the
> IRQ-only notification here.
> 
> [0]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260806-synopsys-dw-dp-improvements-v11-11-0d508505f383@collabora.com/

Thanks for the reminder about this series. I need to review it.


-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.