[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 4/6] drm: scrambling support in drm layer
Thierry Reding
thierry.reding at gmail.com
Thu Feb 2 18:13:50 UTC 2017
On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 11:08:22AM +0530, Sharma, Shashank wrote:
> Regards
>
> Shashank
>
>
> On 2/1/2017 10:02 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 06:14:39PM +0530, Shashank Sharma wrote:
> > > HDMI 2.0 spec mandates scrambling for modes with pixel clock higher
> > > than 340Mhz. This patch adds few new functions in drm layer for
> > > core drivers to enable/disable scrambling.
> > >
> > > This patch adds:
> > > - A function to detect scrambling support parsing HF-VSDB
> > > - A function to check scrambling status runtime using SCDC read.
> > > - Two functions to enable/disable scrambling using SCDC read/write.
> > > - Few new bools to reflect scrambling support and status.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Shashank Sharma <shashank.sharma at intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c | 131 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > > include/drm/drm_connector.h | 24 ++++++++
> > > include/drm/drm_edid.h | 6 +-
> > > 3 files changed, 159 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
> > > index 37902e5..f0d940a 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
> > > @@ -37,6 +37,7 @@
> > > #include <drm/drm_edid.h>
> > > #include <drm/drm_encoder.h>
> > > #include <drm/drm_displayid.h>
> > > +#include <drm/drm_scdc_helper.h>
> > > #define version_greater(edid, maj, min) \
> > > (((edid)->version > (maj)) || \
> > > @@ -3814,6 +3815,132 @@ static void drm_detect_hdmi_scdc(struct drm_connector *connector,
> > > }
> > > }
> > > +static void drm_detect_hdmi_scrambling(struct drm_connector *connector,
> > > + const u8 *hf_vsdb)
> > > +{
> > > + struct drm_display_info *display = &connector->display_info;
> > > + struct drm_hdmi_info *hdmi = &display->hdmi_info;
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * All HDMI 2.0 monitors must support scrambling at rates > 340M.
> > In comments below you use Mhz as the abbreviations. This should be
> > consistent. Also I think "MHz" is actually the correct spelling.
> Agree.
> > > + * And as per the spec, three factors confirm this:
> > > + * * Availability of a HF-VSDB block in EDID (check)
> > > + * * Non zero Max_TMDS_Char_Rate filed in HF-VSDB
> > > + * * SCDC support available
> > > + * Lets check it out.
> > > + */
> > > +
> > > + if (hf_vsdb[5]) {
> > > + display->max_tmds_clock = hf_vsdb[5] * 5000;
> > > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("HF-VSDB: max TMDS clock %d kHz\n",
> > > + display->max_tmds_clock);
> > > +
> > > + if (hdmi->scdc_supported) {
> > > + hdmi->scr_info.supported = true;
> > > +
> > > + /* Few sinks support scrambling for cloks < 340M */
> > > + if ((hf_vsdb[6] & 0x8))
> > > + hdmi->scr_info.low_clocks = true;
> > > + }
> > > + }
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +/**
> > > + * drm_check_scrambling_status - what is status of scrambling?
> > > + * @adapter: i2c adapter for SCDC channel
> > "I2C", same in other parts of this patch.
> Got it.
> > > + *
> > > + * Read the scrambler status over SCDC channel, and check the
> > > + * scrambling status.
> > > + *
> > > + * Return: True if the scrambling is enabled, false otherwise.
> > I think the rest of DRM/KMS kerneldoc tries to use "Returns:\n" as a
> > standard way to document return values.
> Ok.
> > > + */
> > > +
> > > +bool drm_check_scrambling_status(struct i2c_adapter *adapter)
> > Maybe use a drm_scdc_*() prefix for this to make it more consistent with
> > other SCDC API.
> >
> > While at it, would this not be better located in drm_scdc.c along with
> > the other helpers? drm_edid.c is more focussed on the parsing aspects of
> > all things EDID.
> Yeah, the same is mentioned by Ville too, will do that.
> > > +{
> > > + u8 status;
> > > +
> > > + if (drm_scdc_readb(adapter, SCDC_SCRAMBLER_STATUS, &status) < 0) {
> > How about storing the error code...
> >
> > > + DRM_ERROR("Failed to read scrambling status\n");
> > ... and making it part of the error message? Sometimes its useful to
> > know what exact error triggered this because it helps narrowing down
> > where things went wrong.
> Agree, in fact while debugging and testing this patch series, I had to print
> it explicitly.
> >
> > > + return false;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + status &= SCDC_SCRAMBLING_STATUS;
> > > + return status != 0;
> > Maybe make this a single line:
> >
> > return (status & SCDC_SCRAMBLING_STATUS) != 0;
> Got it.
> >
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +/**
> > > + * drm_enable_scrambling - enable scrambling
> > > + * @connector: target drm_connector
> > "target DRM connector"?
> Got it.
> > > + * @adapter: i2c adapter for SCDC channel
> > > + * @force: enable scrambling, even if its already enabled
> > > + *
> > > + * Write the TMDS config over SCDC channel, and enable scrambling
> > > + * Return: True if scrambling is successfully enabled, false otherwise.
> > > + */
> > > +
> > > +bool drm_enable_scrambling(struct drm_connector *connector,
> > > + struct i2c_adapter *adapter, bool force)
> > I think I'd move this to drm_scdc.c as well because it primarily
> > operates on SCDC. If you do so, might be worth making adapter the first
> > argument for consistency with other SCDC API.
> Agree, will move it.
> > > +{
> > > + u8 config;
> > > + struct drm_hdmi_info *hdmi_info = &connector->display_info.hdmi_info;
> > > +
> > > + if (hdmi_info->scr_info.status && !force) {
> > > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Scrambling already enabled\n");
> > > + return true;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (drm_scdc_readb(adapter, SCDC_TMDS_CONFIG, &config) < 0) {
> > > + DRM_ERROR("Failed to read tmds config\n");
> > Maybe also print the error code?
> Ok.
> > > + return false;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + config |= SCDC_SCRAMBLING_ENABLE;
> > > +
> > > + if (drm_scdc_writeb(adapter, SCDC_TMDS_CONFIG, config) < 0) {
> > > + DRM_ERROR("Failed to enable scrambling, write error\n");
> > Same here.
> Ok
> > > + return false;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + hdmi_info->scr_info.status = drm_check_scrambling_status(adapter);
> > > + return hdmi_info->scr_info.status;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +/**
> > > + * drm_disable_scrambling - disable scrambling
> > > + * @connector: target drm_connector
> > > + * @adapter: i2c adapter for SCDC channel
> > > + * @force: disable scrambling, even if its already disabled
> > > + *
> > > + * Write the TMDS config over SCDC channel, and disable scrambling
> > > + * Return: True if scrambling is successfully disabled, false otherwise.
> > > + */
> > > +bool drm_disable_scrambling(struct drm_connector *connector,
> > > + struct i2c_adapter *adapter, bool force)
> > > +{
> > > + u8 config;
> > > + struct drm_hdmi_info *hdmi_info = &connector->display_info.hdmi_info;
> > > +
> > > + if (!hdmi_info->scr_info.status && !force) {
> > > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Scrambling already disabled\n");
> > > + return true;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (drm_scdc_readb(adapter, SCDC_TMDS_CONFIG, &config) < 0) {
> > > + DRM_ERROR("Failed to read tmds config\n");
> > > + return false;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + config &= ~SCDC_SCRAMBLING_ENABLE;
> > > +
> > > + if (drm_scdc_writeb(adapter, SCDC_TMDS_CONFIG, config) < 0) {
> > > + DRM_ERROR("Failed to enable scrambling, write error\n");
> > > + return false;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + hdmi_info->scr_info.status = drm_check_scrambling_status(adapter);
> > > + return !hdmi_info->scr_info.status;
> > > +}
> > Same comments as for drm_enable_scrambling().
> Got it.
> > > @@ -3928,8 +4055,10 @@ static void drm_parse_cea_ext(struct drm_connector *connector,
> > > if (cea_db_is_hdmi_vsdb(db))
> > > drm_parse_hdmi_vsdb_video(connector, db);
> > > - if (cea_db_is_hdmi_forum_vsdb(db))
> > > + if (cea_db_is_hdmi_forum_vsdb(db)) {
> > > drm_detect_hdmi_scdc(connector, db);
> > > + drm_detect_hdmi_scrambling(connector, db);
> > > + }
> > > }
> > > }
> > > diff --git a/include/drm/drm_connector.h b/include/drm/drm_connector.h
> > > index 2435598..b9735bd 100644
> > > --- a/include/drm/drm_connector.h
> > > +++ b/include/drm/drm_connector.h
> > > @@ -90,6 +90,26 @@ enum subpixel_order {
> > > };
> > > +
> > > +/**
> > > + * struct scrambling: sink's scrambling support.
> > > + */
> > > +struct scrambling {
> > > + /**
> > > + * @supported: scrambling supported for rates > 340Mhz.
> > I think it's common to separate number and unit by a space, so "340
> > MHz".
> Got it.
> > > + */
> > > + bool supported;
> > > + /**
> > > + * @low_clocks: scrambling supported for rates <= 340Mhz.
> > > + */
> > > + bool low_clocks;
> > Maybe "low_rates" because a clock is technically the source of a signal
> > that oscillates at the given rate.
> Agree, will change it.
> > > + /**
> > > + * @status: scrambling enabled/disabled ?
> > > + */
> > > + bool status;
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +
> > > /**
> > > * struct drm_hdmi_info - runtime data about the connected sink
> > > *
> > > @@ -108,6 +128,10 @@ struct drm_hdmi_info {
> > > * @scdc_rr: sink is capable of generating scdc read request.
> > > */
> > > bool scdc_rr;
> > > + /**
> > > + * scr_info: sink's scrambling support and capabilities.
> > > + */
> > > + struct scrambling scr_info;
> > Again, I think I'd drop _info and instead spell out "scrambling" to make
> > this easier to remember.
> Sure, can be done.
> >
> > Also I'm wondering why scdc_supported and scdc_rr are not in a structure
> > if scrambling info is. Also since scrambling depends on SCDC, would it
> > make sense to embed it in a struct drm_hdmi_scdc_info?
> My opinion while designing was:
> - SCDC rr support is platform specific, and a platform can choose not to
> support read_req but just allow
> scrambling using scdc read and write, hence kept that separate
> - You need to look into this internal structure, only if scdc is supported.
> - Also, SCDC registers can be used beyond scrambling too, like for error
> detection, and other cases, so I thought
> it would be better to keep it independent.
>
> Does it make sense ?
Yes, I think that makes sense, but it's not what I was trying to say. =)
What I was trying to say is that read request and scrambling are defined
in the SCDC specification, and therefore they require SCDC. That's why I
think the below is a natural representation because it captures the
dependency in a hierarchy:
> > struct drm_hdmi_scdc_scrambling_info {
> > bool supported;
> > bool low_rates;
> > bool status;
> > };
> >
> > struct drm_hdmi_scdc_info {
> > bool supported;
> > bool read_request;
> >
> > struct drm_hdmi_scdc_scrambling_info scrambling;
> > };
I should have added to the above:
struct drm_hdmi_info {
struct drm_hdmi_scdc_info scdc;
};
So when conditionalizing code this allows for a very natural ordering of
the code:
struct drm_display_info *info = ...;
struct drm_hdmi_scdc_info *scdc = &info->hdmi.scdc;
if (scdc->supported) {
...
if (scdc->read_request) {
...
e.g. set up handler for read requests
...
}
...
if (scdc->scrambling.supported) {
if (mode->clock >= 340000 || scdc->scrambling.low_rates) {
...
set up scrambling
...;
}
}
...
}
Thierry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/attachments/20170202/b878676f/attachment.sig>
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list