[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4 2/5] drm/i915/psr: Begin to handle PSR/PSR2 errors set by sink
Rodrigo Vivi
rodrigo.vivi at intel.com
Fri Jun 15 05:16:44 UTC 2018
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 05:11:53PM -0700, Souza, Jose wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-06-14 at 16:59 -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 04:46:48PM -0700, Souza, Jose wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2018-06-14 at 14:09 -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 01:34:30PM -0700, José Roberto de Souza
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > eDP spec states that sink device will do a short pulse in HPD
> > > > > line when there is a PSR/PSR2 error that needs to be handled by
> > > > > source, this is handling the first and most simples error:
> > > > > DP_PSR_SINK_INTERNAL_ERROR.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here taking the safest approach and disabling PSR(at least
> > > > > until
> > > > > the next modeset), to avoid multiple rendering issues due to
> > > > > bad pannels.
> > > > >
> > > > > v4:
> > > > > Using CAN_PSR instead of HAS_PSR in intel_psr_short_pulse
> > > > >
> > > > > v3:
> > > > > disabling PSR instead of exiting on error
> > > > >
> > > > > Cc: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan at intel.com>
> > > > > Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza at intel.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 2 ++
> > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h | 1 +
> > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c | 60
> > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > ------
> > > > > 3 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > > > > index 67875b00c8df..19585523e4ce 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > > > > @@ -4474,6 +4474,8 @@ intel_dp_short_pulse(struct intel_dp
> > > > > *intel_dp)
> > > > > if (intel_dp_needs_link_retrain(intel_dp))
> > > > > return false;
> > > > >
> > > > > + intel_psr_short_pulse(intel_dp);
> > > > > +
> > > > > if (intel_dp->compliance.test_type ==
> > > > > DP_TEST_LINK_TRAINING) {
> > > > > DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Link Training Compliance Test
> > > > > requested\n");
> > > > > /* Send a Hotplug Uevent to userspace to start
> > > > > modeset */
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> > > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> > > > > index 8840108749a5..bb6ffdb282fd 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> > > > > @@ -1926,6 +1926,7 @@ void intel_psr_compute_config(struct
> > > > > intel_dp
> > > > > *intel_dp,
> > > > > struct intel_crtc_state
> > > > > *crtc_state);
> > > > > void intel_psr_irq_control(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > > > > bool
> > > > > debug);
> > > > > void intel_psr_irq_handler(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > > > > u32
> > > > > psr_iir);
> > > > > +void intel_psr_short_pulse(struct intel_dp *intel_dp);
> > > > >
> > > > > /* intel_runtime_pm.c */
> > > > > int intel_power_domains_init(struct drm_i915_private *);
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > > > > index bc6d54f677dc..af5fcfd98a53 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > > > > @@ -720,6 +720,23 @@ static void hsw_psr_disable(struct
> > > > > intel_dp
> > > > > *intel_dp)
> > > > > psr_aux_io_power_put(intel_dp);
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > +static void psr_disable(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> > > >
> > > > what about intel_psr_disable_unlocked()?
> > >
> > > unlocked? shouldn't be locked?
> >
> > dam... either way seems ambiguous...
> >
> > maybe just __intel_psr_disable() ?
> >
> > > I'm okay in adding the suffix but it will be different than the
> > > other
> > > functions in this file.
> >
> > without "intel_" you are with prefix different than the other
> > functions
> > in this file anyways...
>
> we have some functions without "intel_", like: psr_aux_domain,
> psr_aux_io_power_get/put, psr_wait_for_idle...
oh! :(
well... I'd prefer if all had intel_
and we don't have 2 functions one intel_psr_disable
and one psr_disable.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + struct intel_digital_port *intel_dig_port =
> > > > > dp_to_dig_port(intel_dp);
> > > > > + struct drm_device *dev = intel_dig_port-
> > > > > >base.base.dev;
> > > > > + struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dev);
> > > >
> > > > assert it is locked here...
> > >
> > > Done
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (!dev_priv->psr.enabled)
> > > > > + return;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + dev_priv->psr.disable_source(intel_dp);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /* Disable PSR on Sink */
> > > > > + drm_dp_dpcd_writeb(&intel_dp->aux, DP_PSR_EN_CFG, 0);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + dev_priv->psr.enabled = NULL;
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > /**
> > > > > * intel_psr_disable - Disable PSR
> > > > > * @intel_dp: Intel DP
> > > > > @@ -741,17 +758,7 @@ void intel_psr_disable(struct intel_dp
> > > > > *intel_dp,
> > > > > return;
> > > > >
> > > > > mutex_lock(&dev_priv->psr.lock);
> > > > > - if (!dev_priv->psr.enabled) {
> > > > > - mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->psr.lock);
> > > > > - return;
> > > > > - }
> > > > > -
> > > > > - dev_priv->psr.disable_source(intel_dp);
> > > > > -
> > > > > - /* Disable PSR on Sink */
> > > > > - drm_dp_dpcd_writeb(&intel_dp->aux, DP_PSR_EN_CFG, 0);
> > > > > -
> > > > > - dev_priv->psr.enabled = NULL;
> > > > > + psr_disable(intel_dp);
> > > > > mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->psr.lock);
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > @@ -992,3 +999,34 @@ void intel_psr_init(struct
> > > > > drm_i915_private
> > > > > *dev_priv)
> > > > > dev_priv->psr.setup_vsc = hsw_psr_setup_vsc;
> > > > >
> > > > > }
> > > > > +
> > > > > +void intel_psr_short_pulse(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + struct intel_digital_port *intel_dig_port =
> > > > > dp_to_dig_port(intel_dp);
> > > > > + struct drm_device *dev = intel_dig_port-
> > > > > >base.base.dev;
> > > > > + struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dev);
> > > > > + struct i915_psr *psr = &dev_priv->psr;
> > > > > + uint8_t val;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (!CAN_PSR(dev_priv) || !intel_dp_is_edp(intel_dp))
> > > > > + return;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + mutex_lock(&psr->lock);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (psr->enabled != intel_dp)
> > > > > + goto exit;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (drm_dp_dpcd_readb(&intel_dp->aux, DP_PSR_STATUS,
> > > > > &val)
> > > > > != 1) {
> > > > > + DRM_ERROR("PSR_STATUS dpcd read failed\n");
> > > > > + goto exit;
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if ((val & DP_PSR_SINK_STATE_MASK) ==
> > > > > DP_PSR_SINK_INTERNAL_ERROR) {
> > > > > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("PSR sink internal error,
> > > > > disabling
> > > > > PSR\n");
> > > > > + psr_disable(intel_dp);
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /* TODO: handle other PSR/PSR2 errors */
> > > > > +exit:
> > > > > + mutex_unlock(&psr->lock);
> > > > > +}
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.17.1
> > > > >
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list