[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 12/23] drm/i915: Sanitize the TypeC connect/detect sequences
Souza, Jose
jose.souza at intel.com
Thu Jun 27 21:06:06 UTC 2019
On Thu, 2019-06-27 at 12:48 +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 02:55:21AM +0300, Souza, Jose wrote:
> > On Thu, 2019-06-20 at 17:05 +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> > > Make the order during detection more consistent: first reset the
> > > TypeC
> > > port mode if needed (adding new helpers for this), then detect
> > > any
> > > connected sink.
> > >
> > > To check if a port mode reset is needed determine first the
> > > target
> > > port
> > > mode based on the live status if a sink is already connected or
> > > the
> > > PHY status complete flag otherwise.
> > >
> > > Add a WARN in legacy mode if unexpectedly we can't set the unsafe
> > > mode
> > > or if the FIA doesn't provide the 4 lanes required.
> > >
> > > Cc: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza at intel.com>
> > > Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com>
> > > Cc: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni at intel.com>
> > > Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak at intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_tc.c | 96 ++++++++++++-------
> > > ----
> > > --
> > > 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_tc.c
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_tc.c
> > > index fffe4c4a6602..ed2253b21b09 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_tc.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_tc.c
> > > @@ -172,41 +172,43 @@ static bool icl_tc_phy_set_safe_mode(struct
> > > intel_digital_port *dig_port,
> > > * will require a lot of coordination with user space and
> > > thorough
> > > testing for
> > > * the extra possible cases.
> > > */
> > > -static bool icl_tc_phy_connect(struct intel_digital_port
> > > *dig_port)
> > > +static void icl_tc_phy_connect(struct intel_digital_port
> > > *dig_port)
> > > {
> > > - u32 live_status_mask;
> > > -
> > > - if (dig_port->tc_mode != TC_PORT_LEGACY &&
> > > - dig_port->tc_mode != TC_PORT_DP_ALT)
> > > - return true;
> > > -
> > > if (!icl_tc_phy_status_complete(dig_port)) {
> > > DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Port %s: PHY not ready\n",
> > > dig_port->tc_port_name);
> > > - WARN_ON(dig_port->tc_legacy_port);
> > > - return false;
> > > + goto out_set_tbt_alt_mode;
> > > }
> > >
> > > - if (!icl_tc_phy_set_safe_mode(dig_port, false))
> > > - return false;
> > > + if (!icl_tc_phy_set_safe_mode(dig_port, false) &&
> > > + !WARN_ON(dig_port->tc_legacy_port))
> > > + goto out_set_tbt_alt_mode;
> >
> > Marking as not safe even for TBT?
>
> You mean if the above will set not-safe mode even for TBT? No, we
> will try to set not-safe mode only for DP-alt and legacy as the PHY
> status complete flag was set.
Oh okay, as you explained the complete flag will not be set for TBT.
Reviewed-by: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza at intel.com>
>
> > >
> > > - if (dig_port->tc_mode == TC_PORT_LEGACY)
> > > - return true;
> > > + if (dig_port->tc_legacy_port) {
> > > + WARN_ON(intel_tc_port_fia_max_lane_count(dig_port) !=
> > > 4);
> > > + dig_port->tc_mode = TC_PORT_LEGACY;
> > >
> > > - live_status_mask = tc_port_live_status_mask(dig_port);
> > > + return;
> > > + }
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * Now we have to re-check the live state, in case the port
> > > recently
> > > * became disconnected. Not necessary for legacy mode.
> > > */
> > > - if (!(live_status_mask & BIT(TC_PORT_DP_ALT))) {
> > > + if (!(tc_port_live_status_mask(dig_port) &
> > > BIT(TC_PORT_DP_ALT))) {
> > > DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Port %s: PHY sudden disconnect\n",
> > > dig_port->tc_port_name);
> > > - icl_tc_phy_disconnect(dig_port);
> > > - return false;
> > > + goto out_set_safe_mode;
> > > }
> > >
> > > - return true;
> > > + dig_port->tc_mode = TC_PORT_DP_ALT;
> > > +
> > > + return;
> > > +
> > > +out_set_safe_mode:
> > > + icl_tc_phy_set_safe_mode(dig_port, true);
> > > +out_set_tbt_alt_mode:
> > > + dig_port->tc_mode = TC_PORT_TBT_ALT;
> > > }
> > >
> > > /*
> > > @@ -227,27 +229,37 @@ void icl_tc_phy_disconnect(struct
> > > intel_digital_port *dig_port)
> > > default:
> > > MISSING_CASE(dig_port->tc_mode);
> > > }
> > > +}
> > >
> > > - DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Port %s: mode %s disconnected\n",
> > > - dig_port->tc_port_name,
> > > - tc_port_mode_name(dig_port->tc_mode));
> > > +static enum tc_port_mode
> > > +intel_tc_port_get_target_mode(struct intel_digital_port
> > > *dig_port)
> > > +{
> > > + u32 live_status_mask = tc_port_live_status_mask(dig_port);
> > > +
> > > + if (live_status_mask)
> > > + return fls(live_status_mask) - 1;
> > > +
> > > + return icl_tc_phy_status_complete(dig_port) &&
> > > + dig_port->tc_legacy_port ? TC_PORT_LEGACY :
> > > + TC_PORT_TBT_ALT;
> >
> > You are right about the order that C will execute this but could
> > you
> > add a pair of parenthesis around
> > icl_tc_phy_status_complete(dig_port)
> > && dig_port->tc_legacy_port to make easier to read?
>
> Not sure, I think the use of 'a && b ? c : d' without parens is usual
> enough, but maybe others have a better idea for a rule-of-thumb for
> using parens that we should follow everywhere. Jani?
>
> Anyway the following would be easier to read (also we can avoid the
> reg
> read for the !legacy case):
>
> if (dig_port->tc_legacy_port &&
> icl_tc_phy_status_complete(dig_port))
> return TC_PORT_LEGACY;
>
> return TC_PORT_TBT_ALT;
>
> > > }
> > >
> > > -static void icl_update_tc_port_type(struct drm_i915_private
> > > *dev_priv,
> > > - struct intel_digital_port
> > > *intel_dig_port,
> > > - u32 live_status_mask)
> > > +static void intel_tc_port_reset_mode(struct intel_digital_port
> > > *dig_port)
> > > {
> > > - enum tc_port_mode old_mode = intel_dig_port->tc_mode;
> > > + enum tc_port_mode old_tc_mode = dig_port->tc_mode;
> > >
> > > - if (!live_status_mask)
> > > - return;
> > > + icl_tc_phy_disconnect(dig_port);
> > > + icl_tc_phy_connect(dig_port);
> > >
> > > - intel_dig_port->tc_mode = fls(live_status_mask) - 1;
> > > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Port %s: TC port mode reset (%s -> %s)\n",
> > > + dig_port->tc_port_name,
> > > + tc_port_mode_name(old_tc_mode),
> > > + tc_port_mode_name(dig_port->tc_mode));
> > > +}
> > >
> > > - if (old_mode != intel_dig_port->tc_mode)
> > > - DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Port %s: port has mode %s\n",
> > > - intel_dig_port->tc_port_name,
> > > - tc_port_mode_name(intel_dig_port-
> > > > tc_mode));
> > > +static bool intel_tc_port_needs_reset(struct intel_digital_port
> > > *dig_port)
> > > +{
> > > + return intel_tc_port_get_target_mode(dig_port) != dig_port-
> > > > tc_mode;
> > > }
> > >
> > > /*
> > > @@ -262,24 +274,10 @@ static void icl_update_tc_port_type(struct
> > > drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > > */
> > > bool intel_tc_port_connected(struct intel_digital_port
> > > *dig_port)
> > > {
> > > - struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dig_port-
> > > > base.base.dev);
> > > - u32 live_status_mask = tc_port_live_status_mask(dig_port);
> > > -
> > > - /*
> > > - * The spec says we shouldn't be using the ISR bits for
> > > detecting
> > > - * between TC and TBT. We should use DFLEXDPSP.
> > > - */
> > > - if (!live_status_mask && !dig_port->tc_legacy_port) {
> > > - icl_tc_phy_disconnect(dig_port);
> > > -
> > > - return false;
> > > - }
> > > -
> > > - icl_update_tc_port_type(dev_priv, dig_port, live_status_mask);
> > > - if (!icl_tc_phy_connect(dig_port))
> > > - return false;
> > > + if (intel_tc_port_needs_reset(dig_port))
> > > + intel_tc_port_reset_mode(dig_port);
> > >
> > > - return true;
> > > + return tc_port_live_status_mask(dig_port) & BIT(dig_port-
> > > > tc_mode);
> > > }
> > >
> > > void intel_tc_port_init(struct intel_digital_port *dig_port,
> > > bool
> > > is_legacy)
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list