Re: [PATCH 1/5] drm/bridge: allow hpd_notify() to suppress connector hotplug events
Dmitry Baryshkov <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.infradead.lists.linux-amlogic,org.freedesktop.lists.dri-devel,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 _______________________________________________ linux-amlogic mailing list [email protected] http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-amlogic