[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 3/3] drm/i915: Fix for PHY_MISC_TC1 offset

[Ville Syrjälä]

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 02:11:54PM +0000, Hogander, Jouni wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-02-16 at 12:07 +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 09:36:02AM +0000, Hogander, Jouni wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2022-02-16 at 10:50 +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 11:21:54AM +0530, Ramalingam C wrote:
> > > > > From: Jouni Högander <jouni.hogander at intel.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > Currently ICL_PHY_MISC macro is returning offset 0x64C10 for
> > > > > PHY_E
> > > > > port. Correct offset is 0x64C14.
> > > > 
> > > > Why is it PHY_E and not PHY_F?
> > > 
> > > This is a valid question. It seems we have followed
> > > intel_phy_is_snps()
> > > here:
> > > 
> > > // snip
> > > else if (IS_DG2(dev_priv))
> > > 		/*
> > > 		 * All four "combo" ports and the TC1 port (PHY E) use
> > > 		 * Synopsis PHYs.
> > > 		 */
> > > 		return phy <= PHY_E;
> > > // snip
> > > 
> > > According to spec port E is "No connection". Better place to fix
> > > this
> > > could be intel_phy_is_snps() itself?
> > 
> > I think the crucial question is where are all the places that
> > the results of intel_port_to_phy() get used.
> > 
> > I do see that for all the actual snps phy registers we
> > do want PHY_E, but maybe it would be better to have a local
> > SNPS_PHY enum just for intel_snps_phy.c, and leave the other
> > phy thing for everything else?
> > 
> > Not sure if there is some other register we index with the
> > phy that specifically wants PHY_E?
> 
> I went through registers accesses in intel_snps_phy.c. It is actually
> only this one register which offset is wrong with PHY_E. Everything
> else seems to be assuming PHY_E including those SNPS_* registers (as
> you mentioned). I'm starting to think it would be overkill to open up
> this phy enum for this purpose. I would propose to stick with current
> patch. Maybe just update commit message. What do you think?

I would put it the other way. It is *only* the SNPS PHY IP registers
that use the wonky offsets (unless you found some others?). Everythting
on the Intel IP side wants it to be PHY_F.

So still would make more sense to me to add a new enum for the
SNPS PHY instance and remap across the boundary. Otherwise we're
just propagating this madness everwhere rather than containing in
the SNPS PHY implementation.

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel