[Intel-gfx] [PATCH resend 2/2] drm/i915/display: Make vlv_find_free_pps() skip pipes which are in use for non DP purposes

[Ville Syrjälä]

On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 11:39:09AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 3/2/21 3:51 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 01:00:40PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> >> As explained by a long comment block, on VLV intel_setup_outputs()
> >> sometimes thinks there might be an eDP panel connected while there is none.
> >> In this case intel_setup_outputs() will call intel_dp_init() to check.
> >>
> >> In this scenario vlv_find_free_pps() ends up selecting pipe A for the pps,
> >> even though this might be in use for non DP purposes. When this is the case
> >> then the assert_pipe() in vlv_force_pll_on() will fail when called from
> >> vlv_power_sequencer_kick().
> > 
> > The idea is that you *can* select a PPS from a pipe used for a non-DP
> > port since those don't care about the PPS stuff. So this doesn't seem
> > correct.
> 
> They may not care about the PPS stuff, but as the WARN / backtrace
> shows if the DPLL_VCO_ENABLE bit is not already set for the pipe, while
> the pipe is "otherwise" in use then vlv_force_pll_on() becomes unhappy
> triggering the WARN.
> 
> > a) I would like to see the VBT for this machine
> 
> https://fedorapeople.org/~jwrdegoede/voyo-winpad-a15-vbt
> 
> > b) I wonder if the DSI PLL is sufficient for getting the PPS going?
> 
> I have no idea, I just noticed the WARN / backtrace and this seemed
> like a reasonably way to deal with it. With that said I'm fine with fixing
> this a different way.
> 
> > c) If we do need the normal DPLL is there any harm to DSI in enabling it?
> 
> I would assume this increases power-consumption and DSI panels are almost
> always used in battery powered devices.

This is just used while probing the panel, so power consumption is
not a concern.

> 
> Also this would impact all BYT/CHT devices, possible triggering unwanted
> side-effects. Where as the proposed fix below is much more narrowly targeted
> at the problem. It might not be the most pretty fix but AFAICT it has a low
> risk of causing regressions.

It rather significantly changes the logic of the workaround, potentially
causing us to not find a free PPS at all. Eg. if you were to boot with
a VLV with pipe A -> eDP B + eDP C inactive + pipe B -> VGA then your
change would cause us to not find the free pipe B PPS for probing eDP C,
and in the end we'd get a WARN and fall back to pipe A PPS which would
clobber the actually in use pipe A PPS.

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel