[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/tgl+: Fix DP MST ACT status handling

[Imre Deak]

On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 06:39:55PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 09:31:31PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> > On TGL+ the master transcoder's DP_TP_STATUS register should be used for
> > the MST ACT status handling, so make sure we do that even in case of
> > mulitple streams.
> > 
> > This fixes an ACT timeout problem during disabling when using multiple
> > streams. Not sure why this was not a problem during enabling (even the
> > slave's DP_TP_STATUS signaled ACT correctly), but following the spec
> > works in that case too, so let's do that.
> > 
> > There is one more place using DP_TP_STATUS, FEC enabling, but I haven't
> > found in BSpec which register to use in that case, so I leave the
> > clarification of that for later.
> > 
> > BSpec: 49190
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak at intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_mst.c | 47 +++++++++++++++++----
> >  1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_mst.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_mst.c
> > index d18b406f2a7d..1c3654a117a9 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_mst.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_mst.c
> > @@ -316,6 +316,40 @@ intel_dp_mst_atomic_check(struct drm_connector *connector,
> >  	return ret;
> >  }
> >  
> > +static i915_reg_t
> > +master_dp_tp_status_reg(const struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state,
> > +			const struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> > +{
> > +	struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(crtc_state->uapi.crtc->dev);
> > +
> > +	if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 12)
> > +		return TGL_DP_TP_STATUS(crtc_state->mst_master_transcoder);
> > +
> > +	return intel_dp->regs.dp_tp_status;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void clear_act_sent(const struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state,
> > +			   const struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> > +{
> > +	struct drm_i915_private *i915 = to_i915(crtc_state->uapi.crtc->dev);
> > +	i915_reg_t dp_tp_status_reg =
> > +		master_dp_tp_status_reg(crtc_state, intel_dp);
> > +
> > +	intel_de_write(i915, dp_tp_status_reg,
> > +		       intel_de_read(i915, dp_tp_status_reg));
> 
> Followup material:
> Should we actually just clear the bit(s) we care about? No idea what
> other stuff is in there.

Yes, was thinking about that, but thought to leave it as-is for now,
since enabling may depend on something that we clear there. Though
clearing all the bits may break disabling, so probably better to have
this change already now.

> 
> > +}
> > +
> > +static bool wait_for_act_sent(const struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state,
> > +			      const struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> > +{
> > +	struct drm_i915_private *i915 = to_i915(crtc_state->uapi.crtc->dev);
> > +	i915_reg_t dp_tp_status_reg =
> > +		master_dp_tp_status_reg(crtc_state, intel_dp);
> > +
> > +	return intel_de_wait_for_set(i915, dp_tp_status_reg,
> > +				     DP_TP_STATUS_ACT_SENT, 1) == 0;
> > +}
> > +
> >  static void intel_mst_disable_dp(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
> >  				 struct intel_encoder *encoder,
> >  				 const struct intel_crtc_state *old_crtc_state,
> > @@ -376,8 +410,7 @@ static void intel_mst_post_disable_dp(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
> >  		       TRANS_DDI_FUNC_CTL(old_crtc_state->cpu_transcoder),
> >  		       val);
> >  
> > -	if (intel_de_wait_for_set(dev_priv, intel_dp->regs.dp_tp_status,
> > -				  DP_TP_STATUS_ACT_SENT, 1))
> > +	if (!wait_for_act_sent(old_crtc_state, intel_dp))
> >  		drm_err(&dev_priv->drm,
> >  			"Timed out waiting for ACT sent when disabling\n");
> >  	drm_dp_check_act_status(&intel_dp->mst_mgr);
> > @@ -443,7 +476,6 @@ static void intel_mst_pre_enable_dp(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
> >  	struct intel_connector *connector =
> >  		to_intel_connector(conn_state->connector);
> >  	int ret;
> > -	u32 temp;
> >  	bool first_mst_stream;
> >  
> >  	/* MST encoders are bound to a crtc, not to a connector,
> > @@ -476,8 +508,8 @@ static void intel_mst_pre_enable_dp(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
> >  		drm_err(&dev_priv->drm, "failed to allocate vcpi\n");
> >  
> >  	intel_dp->active_mst_links++;
> > -	temp = intel_de_read(dev_priv, intel_dp->regs.dp_tp_status);
> > -	intel_de_write(dev_priv, intel_dp->regs.dp_tp_status, temp);
> > +
> > +	clear_act_sent(pipe_config, intel_dp);
> >  
> >  	ret = drm_dp_update_payload_part1(&intel_dp->mst_mgr);
> >  
> > @@ -513,9 +545,8 @@ static void intel_mst_enable_dp(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
> >  	drm_dbg_kms(&dev_priv->drm, "active links %d\n",
> >  		    intel_dp->active_mst_links);
> >  
> > -	if (intel_de_wait_for_set(dev_priv, intel_dp->regs.dp_tp_status,
> > -				  DP_TP_STATUS_ACT_SENT, 1))
> > -		drm_err(&dev_priv->drm, "Timed out waiting for ACT sent\n");
> > +	if (!wait_for_act_sent(pipe_config, intel_dp))
> > +		drm_err(&dev_priv->drm, "Timed out waiting for ACT sent when enabling\n");
> >  
> >  	drm_dp_check_act_status(&intel_dp->mst_mgr);
> >  
> > -- 
> > 2.23.1
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Intel-gfx mailing list
> > Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
> 
> -- 
> Ville Syrjälä
> Intel