[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 3/3] drm/i915/display: remove strap checks from gen 9

[Lucas De Marchi]

On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 06:45:16PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 11:09:27PM -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>> Direction on gen9+ was to stop reading the straps and only rely on the
>> VBT for marking the port presence. This happened while dealing with
>> WaIgnoreDDIAStrap and instead of using it as a WA, it should now be the
>> normal flow. See commit 885d3e5b6f08 ("drm/i915/display: fix comment on
>> skl straps").
>>
>> For gen 10 it's hard to say if this will work or not since I can't test
>> it, so leave it with the same behavior as before.
>>
>> For PCH_TGP we should still rely on the VBT to make ports E and F not
>> available.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi at intel.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Anusha Srivatsa <anusha.srivatsa at intel.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c | 36 ++++++--------------
>>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
>> index d62ce9c87748..5a03cbba0280 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
>> @@ -10883,34 +10883,25 @@ static void intel_setup_outputs(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>>  		intel_ddi_init(dev_priv, PORT_B);
>>  		intel_ddi_init(dev_priv, PORT_C);
>>  		vlv_dsi_init(dev_priv);
>> +	} else if (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) == 9) {
>
>Should be >=10 I presume? Or did we want ot handle cnl along with

why >= 10? The only DISPLAY_VER() == 10 platforms out there are handled
in the branch above. I can make it >= 9, but not >= 10. Intention was to
handle skl/kbl here.


>icl perhaps? Doesn't really matter I suppose, but it's surely
>going to consfuse the me the next time I read this.
>
>> +		intel_ddi_init(dev_priv, PORT_A);
>> +		intel_ddi_init(dev_priv, PORT_B);
>> +		intel_ddi_init(dev_priv, PORT_C);
>> +		intel_ddi_init(dev_priv, PORT_D);
>> +		intel_ddi_init(dev_priv, PORT_E);
>> +		intel_ddi_init(dev_priv, PORT_F);
>
>DDI F isn't a thing on skl/derivatives, so I'd probably skip it on
>those. Could just use IS_CNL_WITH_PORT_F() to match the looks of
>the icl stuff.

I was actually looking at ICL and thinking "shouldn't this hack for
broken VBT be hidden in intel_bios.c?"  I think we should trust what we
parse from VBT everywhere  except of course in intel_bios.c where we
fixup when the VBT is wrong. Thoughts?

Thanks
Lucas De Marchi