[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Drop vblank wait from intel_dp_link_down

[Jani Nikula]

On Mon, 09 Feb 2015, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 03:15:56PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2014, Paulo Zanoni <przanoni at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 2014-11-24 13:54 GMT-02:00 Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch>:
>> >> Nothing in Bspec seems to indicate that we actually needs this, and it
>> >> looks like can't work since by this point the pipe is off and so
>> >> vblanks won't really happen any more.
>> >>
>> >> Note that Bspec mentions that it takes a vblank for this bit to
>> >> change, but _only_ when enabling.
>> >>
>> >> Dropping this code quenches an annoying backtrace introduced by the
>> >> more anal checking since
>> >>
>> >> commit 51e31d49c89055299e34b8f44d13f70e19aaaad1
>> >> Author: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch>
>> >> Date:   Mon Sep 15 12:36:02 2014 +0200
>> >>
>> >>     drm/i915: Use generic vblank wait
>> >>
>> >> Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=86095
>> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at intel.com>
>> >> ---
>> >>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 17 +----------------
>> >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 16 deletions(-)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
>> >> index 46731da407c0..63fcdbf90652 100644
>> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
>> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
>> >> @@ -3514,8 +3514,6 @@ intel_dp_link_down(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
>> >>         enum port port = intel_dig_port->port;
>> >>         struct drm_device *dev = intel_dig_port->base.base.dev;
>> >>         struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
>> >> -       struct intel_crtc *intel_crtc =
>> >> -               to_intel_crtc(intel_dig_port->base.base.crtc);
>> >>         uint32_t DP = intel_dp->DP;
>> >>
>> >>         if (WARN_ON(HAS_DDI(dev)))
>> >> @@ -3540,8 +3538,6 @@ intel_dp_link_down(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
>> >>
>> >>         if (HAS_PCH_IBX(dev) &&
>> >>             I915_READ(intel_dp->output_reg) & DP_PIPEB_SELECT) {
>> >> -               struct drm_crtc *crtc = intel_dig_port->base.base.crtc;
>> >> -
>> >>                 /* Hardware workaround: leaving our transcoder select
>> >>                  * set to transcoder B while it's off will prevent the
>> >>                  * corresponding HDMI output on transcoder A.
>> >> @@ -3552,18 +3548,7 @@ intel_dp_link_down(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
>> >>                  */
>> >>                 DP &= ~DP_PIPEB_SELECT;
>> >>                 I915_WRITE(intel_dp->output_reg, DP);
>> >> -
>> >> -               /* Changes to enable or select take place the vblank
>> >> -                * after being written.
>> >> -                */
>> >> -               if (WARN_ON(crtc == NULL)) {
>> >> -                       /* We should never try to disable a port without a crtc
>> >> -                        * attached. For paranoia keep the code around for a
>> >> -                        * bit. */
>> >> -                       POSTING_READ(intel_dp->output_reg);
>> >> -                       msleep(50);
>> >> -               } else
>> >> -                       intel_wait_for_vblank(dev, intel_crtc->pipe);
>> >
>> > What I can guess is that we have the vblank wait here because the
>> > DP_PORT_EN bit is still enabled at this point. It would make some
>> > sense to have it if the pipe were not off... So removing the waits
>> > looks sane: Reviewed-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni at intel.com>
>> >
>> > But when I read the spec, it makes me think that maybe doing the
>> > I915_WRITE above is also wrong, since the port is still enabled. Maybe
>> > we should only clear bit 30 in the same write as the one that clears
>> > bit 31?
>> 
>> Ugh. So the spec says, "When disabling the port, software must
>> temporarily enable the port with transcoder select (bit #30) cleared to
>> ‘0’ after disabling the port."
>> 
>> IIUC we should disable like we normally do, and do the w/a by enabling
>> and disabling the port with DP_PIPEB_SELECT cleared *after* that. I
>> think the current code is wrong, the patch is wrong, what Paulo suggests
>> is wrong, and also intel_disable_hdmi() is wrong.
>
> This code has been bugging me for a long time as well. IIRC I even had
> cooked up some patches to do the re-enable as you suggest since I
> read the spec the same way. But I never had enough time to test it. And
> in order to really test it I would first like to actually reproduce the
> problem that the workaround is supposed to fix. How else would you know
> if the workaround is correct after all.

*sigh* an alternative is to apply Daniel's patch and add a comment
there's something fishy.

Jani.

>
> -- 
> Ville Syrjälä
> Intel OTC

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center