[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4] drm/i915: edp resume/On time optimization.

[Daniel Vetter]

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 02:37:55PM -0800, Kumar, Abhay wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/12/2016 5:57 PM, Kumar, Abhay wrote:
> >From: Abhay Kumar <abhay.kumar at intel.com>
> >
> >Make resume/on codepath not to wait for panel_power_cycle_delay(t11_t12)
> >if this time is already spent in suspend/poweron time.
> >
> >v2: Use CLOCK_BOOTTIME and remove jiffies for panel power cycle
> >     delay calculation(Ville).
> >
> >v3: Addressed below comments
> >     1. Tracking time from where last powercycle is initiated.
> >     2. Used ktime_get_bootime() wrapper for boottime clock.
> >     3. Used ktime_ms_delta() to get time difference.
> >
> >v4: Updated v3 change log in detail.
> >
> >Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> >Signed-off-by: Abhay Kumar <abhay.kumar at intel.com>

I can't see the r-b here nor anywhere else in this thread. That's why I
didn't pick it up. Where is it?
-Daniel

> >---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c  | 19 ++++++++++++++-----
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h |  2 +-
> >  2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> >index 796e3d3..0042693 100644
> >--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> >+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> >@@ -1812,12 +1812,21 @@ static void wait_panel_off(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> >  static void wait_panel_power_cycle(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> >  {
> >+	static ktime_t panel_power_on_time;
> >+	s64 panel_power_off_duration;
> >+
> >  	DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Wait for panel power cycle\n");
> >+	/* take the difference of currrent time and panel power off time
> >+	 * and then make panel wait for t11_t12 if needed. */
> >+	panel_power_on_time = ktime_get_boottime();
> >+	panel_power_off_duration = ktime_ms_delta(panel_power_on_time, intel_dp->panel_power_off_time);
> >+
> >  	/* When we disable the VDD override bit last we have to do the manual
> >  	 * wait. */
> >-	wait_remaining_ms_from_jiffies(intel_dp->last_power_cycle,
> >-				       intel_dp->panel_power_cycle_delay);
> >+	if (panel_power_off_duration < (s64)intel_dp->panel_power_cycle_delay)
> >+		wait_remaining_ms_from_jiffies(jiffies,
> >+				       intel_dp->panel_power_cycle_delay - panel_power_off_duration);
> >  	wait_panel_status(intel_dp, IDLE_CYCLE_MASK, IDLE_CYCLE_VALUE);
> >  }
> >@@ -1969,7 +1978,7 @@ static void edp_panel_vdd_off_sync(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> >  	I915_READ(pp_stat_reg), I915_READ(pp_ctrl_reg));
> >  	if ((pp & POWER_TARGET_ON) == 0)
> >-		intel_dp->last_power_cycle = jiffies;
> >+		intel_dp->panel_power_off_time = ktime_get_boottime();
> >  	power_domain = intel_display_port_aux_power_domain(intel_encoder);
> >  	intel_display_power_put(dev_priv, power_domain);
> >@@ -2118,7 +2127,7 @@ static void edp_panel_off(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> >  	I915_WRITE(pp_ctrl_reg, pp);
> >  	POSTING_READ(pp_ctrl_reg);
> >-	intel_dp->last_power_cycle = jiffies;
> >+	intel_dp->panel_power_off_time = ktime_get_boottime();
> >  	wait_panel_off(intel_dp);
> >  	/* We got a reference when we enabled the VDD. */
> >@@ -5122,7 +5131,7 @@ intel_dp_add_properties(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, struct drm_connector *connect
> >  static void intel_dp_init_panel_power_timestamps(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> >  {
> >-	intel_dp->last_power_cycle = jiffies;
> >+	intel_dp->panel_power_off_time = ktime_get_boottime();
> >  	intel_dp->last_power_on = jiffies;
> >  	intel_dp->last_backlight_off = jiffies;
> >  }
> >diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> >index bdfe403..06b37b8 100644
> >--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> >+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> >@@ -793,9 +793,9 @@ struct intel_dp {
> >  	int backlight_off_delay;
> >  	struct delayed_work panel_vdd_work;
> >  	bool want_panel_vdd;
> >-	unsigned long last_power_cycle;
> >  	unsigned long last_power_on;
> >  	unsigned long last_backlight_off;
> >+	ktime_t panel_power_off_time;
> >  	struct notifier_block edp_notifier;
> 
> Since this is already reviewed. Can we please get this Queued for -next ?
> 
> Regards,
> Abhay Kumar
> 

-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch