[Intel-gfx] [RFC 4/7] drm/i915/dp: Notify testapp using uevent and debugfs entry

[Animesh Manna]

On 11/18/2019 10:36 AM, Manasi Navare wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 08:58:45PM -0800, Manasi Navare wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 08:55:46PM +0530, Animesh Manna wrote:
>>> To align with link compliance design existing intel_dp_compliance
>>> tool will be used to get the phy request in userspace through uevent.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Animesh Manna <animesh.manna at intel.com>
>> I would prefer splitting this patch since sending a uevent is more related
>> to the PHY test prep handling and debugfs handling can all be in a separate
>> patch.
>> I prefer this because debugfs nodes might need to change in the future based
>> on more requirements or testing feedback so its better for that to be in separate
>> patch.
>>
>> you could add the hotplug event sending part to the prep patch (3/7) and mention that
>> in the commit message

Sure.
>>
>> Debugfs part looks good to me. Have you tested the debugfs nodes and validated if this
>> information is being written in the correct form?

Tested the test-type entry, planning to add a newline char, otherwise 
working.

>>
>> After the split and validation of debugs nodes:
>>
>> Acked-by: Manasi Navare <manasi.d.navare at intel.com>

Thanks.
>>
>> Manasi
>>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c |  6 ++++--
>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c     | 10 ++++++++++
>>>   2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c
>>> index 338d3744c5d5..a2b860cf3b93 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c
>>> @@ -5288,8 +5288,10 @@ intel_dp_short_pulse(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
>>>   
>>>   	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");
>>> +	if (intel_dp->compliance.test_type == DP_TEST_LINK_TRAINING ||
>>> +	    intel_dp->compliance.test_type ==
>>> +	    DP_TEST_LINK_PHY_TEST_PATTERN) {
>>> +		DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Compliance Test requested\n");
> One more change I think here would be good IMO for debugging is that
> you should print test_type in DEBUG_KMS

Sure.

Regards,
Animesh
>
> Manasi
>
>>>   		/* Send a Hotplug Uevent to userspace to start modeset */
>>>   		drm_kms_helper_hotplug_event(&dev_priv->drm);
>>>   	}
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
>>> index cab632791f73..e8b1a8c1015a 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
>>> @@ -3212,6 +3212,16 @@ static int i915_displayport_test_data_show(struct seq_file *m, void *data)
>>>   					   intel_dp->compliance.test_data.vdisplay);
>>>   				seq_printf(m, "bpc: %u\n",
>>>   					   intel_dp->compliance.test_data.bpc);
>>> +			} else if (intel_dp->compliance.test_type ==
>>> +				   DP_TEST_LINK_PHY_TEST_PATTERN) {
>>> +				seq_printf(m, "pattern: %d\n",
>>> +					   intel_dp->compliance.test_data.phytest.phy_pattern);
>>> +				seq_printf(m, "Number of lanes: %d\n",
>>> +					   intel_dp->compliance.test_data.phytest.num_lanes);
>>> +				seq_printf(m, "Link Rate: %d\n",
>>> +					   intel_dp->compliance.test_data.phytest.link_rate);
>>> +				seq_printf(m, "level: %02x\n",
>>> +					   intel_dp->train_set[0]);
>>>   			}
>>>   		} else
>>>   			seq_puts(m, "0");
>>> -- 
>>> 2.22.0
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Intel-gfx mailing list
>> Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx