[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 3/8] drm/i915/psr: Avoid initializing PSR if there is no sink support.

[Rodrigo Vivi]

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 05:26:54AM +0000, Dhinakaran Pandiyan wrote:
> DPCD read for the eDP is complete by the time intel_psr_init() is
> called, which means we can avoid initializing PSR structures and state
> if there is no sink support.
> 
> Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com>
> Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan at intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 7 ++++++-
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c    | 9 +++++++++
>  2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> index 64e5a263458c..1a7b28f62570 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> @@ -2532,14 +2532,19 @@ static int i915_edp_psr_status(struct seq_file *m, void *data)
>  	u32 stat[3];
>  	enum pipe pipe;
>  	bool enabled = false;
> +	bool sink_support;
>  
>  	if (!HAS_PSR(dev_priv))
>  		return -ENODEV;
>  
> +	sink_support = dev_priv->psr.sink_support;
> +	seq_printf(m, "Sink_Support: %s\n", yesno(sink_support));
> +	if (!sink_support)
> +		return 0;
> +
>  	intel_runtime_pm_get(dev_priv);
>  
>  	mutex_lock(&dev_priv->psr.lock);
> -	seq_printf(m, "Sink_Support: %s\n", yesno(dev_priv->psr.sink_support));
>  	seq_printf(m, "Enabled: %s\n", yesno((bool)dev_priv->psr.enabled));
>  	seq_printf(m, "Active: %s\n", yesno(dev_priv->psr.active));
>  	seq_printf(m, "Busy frontbuffer bits: 0x%03x\n",
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> index 76339cf387cb..095e0a5a8574 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> @@ -503,6 +503,9 @@ void intel_psr_enable(struct intel_dp *intel_dp,
>  	if (!crtc_state->has_psr)
>  		return;
>  
> +	if (WARN_ON(!CAN_PSR(dev_priv)))
> +		return;

hmm... I believe we will see this warning sooner than later...

has_psr is not the same as CAN_PSR.

also, btw I didn't like all this crtc_state has_psr x has_psr2. :/

probably this series could also unify that and clean it up.
to many has_psr like cases.

> +
>  	WARN_ON(dev_priv->drrs.dp);
>  	mutex_lock(&dev_priv->psr.lock);
>  	if (dev_priv->psr.enabled) {
> @@ -633,6 +636,9 @@ void intel_psr_disable(struct intel_dp *intel_dp,
>  	if (!old_crtc_state->has_psr)
>  		return;
>  
> +	if (WARN_ON(!CAN_PSR(dev_priv)))
> +		return;
> +
>  	mutex_lock(&dev_priv->psr.lock);
>  	if (!dev_priv->psr.enabled) {
>  		mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->psr.lock);
> @@ -913,6 +919,9 @@ void intel_psr_init(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>  	dev_priv->psr_mmio_base = IS_HASWELL(dev_priv) ?
>  		HSW_EDP_PSR_BASE : BDW_EDP_PSR_BASE;
>  
> +	if (!dev_priv->psr.sink_support)
> +		return;
> +

Why not use CAN_PSR here?

>  	/* Per platform default: all disabled. */
>  	if (i915_modparams.enable_psr == -1)
>  		i915_modparams.enable_psr = 0;
> -- 
> 2.11.0
>