[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Splitting intel_dp_check_link_status

[Thulasimani, Sivakumar]

On 1/19/2016 2:35 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 02:29:22PM +0530, Thulasimani, Sivakumar wrote:
>>
>> On 1/19/2016 2:14 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:14:30AM +0530, Thulasimani, Sivakumar wrote:
>>>> On 1/19/2016 2:35 AM, Lukas Wunner wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 04:22:19PM +0530, Shubhangi Shrivastava wrote:
>>>>>> When created originally intel_dp_check_link_status()
>>>>>> was supposed to handle only link training for short
>>>>>> pulse but has grown into handler for short pulse itself.
>>>>>> This patch cleans up this function by splitting it into
>>>>>> two halves. First intel_dp_short_pulse() is called,
>>>>>> which will be entry point and handle all logic for
>>>>>> short pulse handling while intel_dp_check_link_status()
>>>>>> will retain its original purpose of only doing link
>>>>>> status related work.
>>>>>> The link retraining part when EQ is not correct is
>>>>>> retained to intel_dp_check_link_status whereas other
>>>>>> operations are handled as part of intel_dp_short_pulse.
>>>>>> This change is required to avoid performing all DPCD
>>>>>> related operations on performing link retraining.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> v2: Added WARN_ON to intel_dp_check_link_status()
>>>>>>      Removed a call to intel_dp_get_link_status() (Ander)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tested-by: Nathan D Ciobanu <nathan.d.ciobanu at intel.com>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sivakumar Thulasimani <sivakumar.thulasimani at intel.com>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Shubhangi Shrivastava <shubhangi.shrivastava at intel.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 65 +++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
>>>>>>   1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
>>>>>> index 82ee18d..f8d9611 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
>>>>>> @@ -4279,6 +4279,36 @@ go_again:
>>>>>>   	return -EINVAL;
>>>>>>   }
>>>>>> +static void
>>>>>> +intel_dp_check_link_status(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> +	struct intel_encoder *intel_encoder = &dp_to_dig_port(intel_dp)->base;
>>>>>> +	struct drm_device *dev = intel_dp_to_dev(intel_dp);
>>>>>> +	u8 link_status[DP_LINK_STATUS_SIZE];
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	WARN_ON(!drm_modeset_is_locked(&dev->mode_config.connection_mutex));
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	if (!intel_dp_get_link_status(intel_dp, link_status)) {
>>>>>> +		DRM_ERROR("Failed to get link status\n");
>>>>>> +		return;
>>>>>> +	}
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	if (!intel_encoder->base.crtc)
>>>>>> +		return;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	if (!to_intel_crtc(intel_encoder->base.crtc)->active)
>>>>>> +		return;
>>>>> Why do you change the order of the three if-clauses above?
>>>>> The original order seems to make more sense. (Checking for
>>>>> ->base.crtc and ->active is cheap, whereas accessing AUX to
>>>>> get the link status is time consuming. You don't want to
>>>>> spend that time only to bail out, should one of the other two
>>>>> if-clauses fail.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Lukas
>>>> Actually it is expected to read link status whenever we receive short pulse
>>>> interrupt
>>>> irrespective of the panel being enabled or not. So this change is with
>>>> respect to
>>>> that rather than any performance based.
>>> As a general rule please don't make functional changes like these in a
>>> patch that just splits stuff up. Your patch summary sounds like simple
>>> refactoring, which this doesn't seem to be.
>>> -Daniel
>> Understood, will make the appropriate changes and move that to separate
>> patch.
> btw you don't have to split it since really this is a small change.
> Changing the subject to something that makes is clearer that it's not just
> refactoring is also ok, e.g. "reorganize intel_dp_detect"
>
> Then explain in the commit message why and what changes, like you do
> already.
> -Daniel
Sure, that will save some time in redoing ULT+upstreaming :).
to give some background, the movement was supposed to be a separate
patch but got merged during this cleanup. Will make sure that gets
documented and split clearly as required hence forth.

regards,
Sivakumar