[PATCH] Revert "drm/dp_mst: Remove single tx msg restriction."
Sean Paul
sean at poorly.run
Thu Apr 23 17:09:46 UTC 2020
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 12:42 PM Lyude Paul <lyude at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> This reverts commit 6bb0942e8f46863a745489cce27efe5be2a3885e.
>
> Unfortunately it would appear that the rumors we've heard of sideband
> message interleaving not being very well supported are true. On the
> Lenovo ThinkPad Thunderbolt 3 dock that I have, interleaved messages
> appear to just get dropped:
>
> [drm:drm_dp_mst_wait_tx_reply [drm_kms_helper]] timedout msg send
> 00000000571ddfd0 2 1
> [dp_mst] txmsg cur_offset=2 cur_len=2 seqno=1 state=SENT path_msg=1 dst=00
> [dp_mst] type=ENUM_PATH_RESOURCES contents:
> [dp_mst] port=2
>
> DP descriptor for this hub:
> OUI 90-cc-24 dev-ID SYNA3 HW-rev 1.0 SW-rev 3.12 quirks 0x0008
>
> It would seem like as well that this is a somewhat well known issue in
> the field. From section 5.4.2 of the DisplayPort 2.0 specification:
>
> There are MST Sink/Branch devices in the field that do not handle
> interleaved message transactions.
>
> To facilitate message transaction handling by downstream devices, an
> MST Source device shall generate message transactions in an atomic
> manner (i.e., the MST Source device shall not concurrently interleave
> multiple message transactions). Therefore, an MST Source device shall
> clear the Message_Sequence_No value in the Sideband_MSG_Header to 0.
>
> MST Source devices that support field policy updates by way of
> software should update the policy to forego the generation of
> interleaved message transactions.
>
> This is a bit disappointing, as features like HDCP require that we send
> a sideband request every ~2 seconds for each active stream. However,
> there isn't really anything in the specification that allows us to
> accurately probe for interleaved messages.
>
> If it ends up being that we -really- need this in the future, we might
> be able to whitelist hubs where interleaving is known to work-or maybe
> try some sort of heuristics. But for now, let's just play it safe and
> not use it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lyude Paul <lyude at redhat.com>
> Fixes: 6bb0942e8f46 ("drm/dp_mst: Remove single tx msg restriction.")
> Cc: Wayne Lin <Wayne.Lin at amd.com>
> Cc: Sean Paul <seanpaul at chromium.org>
Bummer :-(
Thanks for digging into this!
Reviewed-by: Sean Paul <sean at poorly.run>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
> include/drm/drm_dp_mst_helper.h | 5 +++++
> 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c
> index 21f10ceb3d6c..03a1496f6120 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c
> @@ -1205,6 +1205,8 @@ static int drm_dp_mst_wait_tx_reply(struct drm_dp_mst_branch *mstb,
> txmsg->state == DRM_DP_SIDEBAND_TX_SENT) {
> mstb->tx_slots[txmsg->seqno] = NULL;
> }
> + mgr->is_waiting_for_dwn_reply = false;
> +
> }
> out:
> if (unlikely(ret == -EIO) && drm_debug_enabled(DRM_UT_DP)) {
> @@ -1214,6 +1216,7 @@ static int drm_dp_mst_wait_tx_reply(struct drm_dp_mst_branch *mstb,
> }
> mutex_unlock(&mgr->qlock);
>
> + drm_dp_mst_kick_tx(mgr);
> return ret;
> }
>
> @@ -2789,9 +2792,11 @@ static void process_single_down_tx_qlock(struct drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr *mgr)
> ret = process_single_tx_qlock(mgr, txmsg, false);
> if (ret == 1) {
> /* txmsg is sent it should be in the slots now */
> + mgr->is_waiting_for_dwn_reply = true;
> list_del(&txmsg->next);
> } else if (ret) {
> DRM_DEBUG_KMS("failed to send msg in q %d\n", ret);
> + mgr->is_waiting_for_dwn_reply = false;
> list_del(&txmsg->next);
> if (txmsg->seqno != -1)
> txmsg->dst->tx_slots[txmsg->seqno] = NULL;
> @@ -2831,7 +2836,8 @@ static void drm_dp_queue_down_tx(struct drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr *mgr,
> drm_dp_mst_dump_sideband_msg_tx(&p, txmsg);
> }
>
> - if (list_is_singular(&mgr->tx_msg_downq))
> + if (list_is_singular(&mgr->tx_msg_downq) &&
> + !mgr->is_waiting_for_dwn_reply)
> process_single_down_tx_qlock(mgr);
> mutex_unlock(&mgr->qlock);
> }
> @@ -3823,6 +3829,7 @@ static int drm_dp_mst_handle_down_rep(struct drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr *mgr)
> mutex_lock(&mgr->qlock);
> txmsg->state = DRM_DP_SIDEBAND_TX_RX;
> mstb->tx_slots[seqno] = NULL;
> + mgr->is_waiting_for_dwn_reply = false;
> mutex_unlock(&mgr->qlock);
>
> wake_up_all(&mgr->tx_waitq);
> @@ -3830,6 +3837,9 @@ static int drm_dp_mst_handle_down_rep(struct drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr *mgr)
> return 0;
>
> out_clear_reply:
> + mutex_lock(&mgr->qlock);
> + mgr->is_waiting_for_dwn_reply = false;
> + mutex_unlock(&mgr->qlock);
> if (msg)
> memset(msg, 0, sizeof(struct drm_dp_sideband_msg_rx));
> out:
> @@ -4683,7 +4693,7 @@ static void drm_dp_tx_work(struct work_struct *work)
> struct drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr *mgr = container_of(work, struct drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr, tx_work);
>
> mutex_lock(&mgr->qlock);
> - if (!list_empty(&mgr->tx_msg_downq))
> + if (!list_empty(&mgr->tx_msg_downq) && !mgr->is_waiting_for_dwn_reply)
> process_single_down_tx_qlock(mgr);
> mutex_unlock(&mgr->qlock);
> }
> diff --git a/include/drm/drm_dp_mst_helper.h b/include/drm/drm_dp_mst_helper.h
> index 2d7c26592c05..96bcf33c03d3 100644
> --- a/include/drm/drm_dp_mst_helper.h
> +++ b/include/drm/drm_dp_mst_helper.h
> @@ -592,6 +592,11 @@ struct drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr {
> */
> bool payload_id_table_cleared : 1;
>
> + /**
> + * @is_waiting_for_dwn_reply: whether we're waiting for a down reply.
> + */
> + bool is_waiting_for_dwn_reply : 1;
> +
> /**
> * @mst_primary: Pointer to the primary/first branch device.
> */
> --
> 2.25.3
>
More information about the dri-devel
mailing list