[U-Boot] [PATCH] RFC: rockchip: video: Lower hpd wait time

Waiting 30 seconds for the hpd to go high seems a bit much, especially on headless boots. Lowering the timeout to 300ms.
Sending as RFC because frankly i don't know what a sensible timeout is here, but 30 seconds is clearly not it :)
Signed-off-by: Sjoerd Simons sjoerd.simons@collabora.co.uk
---
drivers/video/rockchip/rk_hdmi.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/video/rockchip/rk_hdmi.c b/drivers/video/rockchip/rk_hdmi.c index 5fcb61a..8805c77 100644 --- a/drivers/video/rockchip/rk_hdmi.c +++ b/drivers/video/rockchip/rk_hdmi.c @@ -666,7 +666,7 @@ static int hdmi_wait_for_hpd(struct rk3288_hdmi *regs) if (hdmi_get_plug_in_status(regs)) return 0; udelay(100); - } while (get_timer(start) < 30000); + } while (get_timer(start) < 300);
return -1; }

On 28 February 2016 at 14:40, Sjoerd Simons sjoerd.simons@collabora.co.uk wrote:
Waiting 30 seconds for the hpd to go high seems a bit much, especially on headless boots. Lowering the timeout to 300ms.
Sending as RFC because frankly i don't know what a sensible timeout is here, but 30 seconds is clearly not it :)
Signed-off-by: Sjoerd Simons sjoerd.simons@collabora.co.uk
drivers/video/rockchip/rk_hdmi.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
At present you can notice that it has hung, and leisurely plug in the cable. But I agree this is silly.
Reviewed-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org

On 29 February 2016 at 19:03, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
On 28 February 2016 at 14:40, Sjoerd Simons sjoerd.simons@collabora.co.uk wrote:
Waiting 30 seconds for the hpd to go high seems a bit much, especially on headless boots. Lowering the timeout to 300ms.
Sending as RFC because frankly i don't know what a sensible timeout is here, but 30 seconds is clearly not it :)
Signed-off-by: Sjoerd Simons sjoerd.simons@collabora.co.uk
drivers/video/rockchip/rk_hdmi.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
At present you can notice that it has hung, and leisurely plug in the cable. But I agree this is silly.
Reviewed-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org
I'm going to apply this even though it is RFC since it seems fine.
Dropped RFC tag and:
Applied to u-boot-rockchip, thanks!
participants (2)
-
Simon Glass
-
Sjoerd Simons