[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] drm/i915: Use crtc_state->has_psr instead of CAN_PSR for pipe update

[Rodrigo Vivi]

On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 12:58:28PM -0700, Dhinakaran Pandiyan wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-07-09 at 12:24 -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 11:30:00AM -0700, Dhinakaran Pandiyan wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Sun, 2018-07-08 at 18:46 -0700, Tarun Vyas wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > In commit "drm/i915: Wait for PSR exit before checking for vblank
> > > > evasion", the idea was to limit the PSR IDLE checks when PSR is
> > > > actually supported. While CAN_PSR does do that check, it doesn't
> > > > applies on a per-crtc basis. crtc_state->has_psr is a more
> > > > granular
> > > > check that avoids everything but pipe A, for the PSR IDLE check.
> > > > 
> > > > With this, the PSR IDLE check should be a *no-op* for all but
> > > > pipe A
> > > > which is what was intended originally.
> > > > 
> > > So, the problem is when we update a non-PSR pipe (B or C) and PSR
> > > is
> > > active on another pipe(A, specifically), we end up waiting for the
> > > pipe
> > > A MMIO to become idle.
> > > 
> > > Can you please update the commit message as the commit message
> > > makes
> > > the per-pipe check sound like an optimization? 
> > I truly doubt that multiple PSR pipes case doesn't work in our
> > driver.
> > if that works I'd assume it is by coincidence :P
> > 
> > > 
> > > This also points to a gap in our testing, I don't see a two pipe
> > > PSR
> > > related IGT.
> > The almost impossible mission here is to find any design with 2 eDP
> > connectors and both panels with PSR.
> > 
> I meant, two pipes with PSR on one of them. I looked at the frontbuffer
> _tracking at psr subtests in https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmt
> ip.html, none of them were "2p". Ideally, a pipe update on a non-PSR
> pipe would have triggered this failure in CI.

oh I see... you are right...

> 
> 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Fixes: a608987970b9 ("drm/i915: Wait for PSR exit before checking
> > > > for
> > > > vblank evasion")
> > > > 
> > > > v2: Remove unnecessary parantheses, make checkpatch happy.
> > > > 
> > > > Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com>

I take it back, sorry ;)

> > > > Signed-off-by: Tarun Vyas <tarun.vyas at intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c | 2 +-
> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
> > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
> > > > index 4990d6e84ddf..83880e3a5f3d 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
> > > > @@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ void intel_pipe_update_start(const struct
> > > > intel_crtc_state *new_crtc_state)
> > > >  	 * VBL interrupts will start the PSR exit and prevent a
> > > > PSR
> > > >  	 * re-entry as well.
> > > >  	 */
> > > > -	if (CAN_PSR(dev_priv) &&
> > > > intel_psr_wait_for_idle(dev_priv))
> > > > +	if (new_crtc_state->has_psr &&
> > > > intel_psr_wait_for_idle(dev_priv))
> > > >  		DRM_ERROR("PSR idle timed out, atomic update may
> > > > fail\n");
> > > >  
> > > >  	local_irq_disable();