[PATCH v2 01/17] drm/i915/psr: Store pr_dpcd in intel_dp

[Hogander, Jouni]

On Fri, 2024-05-24 at 05:55 +0000, Manna, Animesh wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hogander, Jouni <jouni.hogander at intel.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2024 2:17 PM
> > To: intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> > Cc: Manna, Animesh <animesh.manna at intel.com>; Kahola, Mika
> > <mika.kahola at intel.com>; Hogander, Jouni <jouni.hogander at intel.com>
> > Subject: [PATCH v2 01/17] drm/i915/psr: Store pr_dpcd in intel_dp
> > 
> > We need pr_dpcd contents for early transport validity check on eDP
> > Panel
> > Replay and in debugfs interface to dump out panel early transport
> > capability.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jouni Högander <jouni.hogander at intel.com>
> > ---
> >  .../drm/i915/display/intel_display_types.h    |  1 +
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_psr.c      | 19 ++++++---------
> > ----
> >  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_types.h
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_types.h
> > index 9678c2b157f6..6fbfe8a18f45 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_types.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_types.h
> > @@ -1743,6 +1743,7 @@ struct intel_dp {
> >         bool use_max_params;
> >         u8 dpcd[DP_RECEIVER_CAP_SIZE];
> >         u8 psr_dpcd[EDP_PSR_RECEIVER_CAP_SIZE];
> > +       u8 pr_dpcd;
> >         u8 downstream_ports[DP_MAX_DOWNSTREAM_PORTS];
> >         u8 edp_dpcd[EDP_DISPLAY_CTL_CAP_SIZE];
> >         u8 lttpr_common_caps[DP_LTTPR_COMMON_CAP_SIZE];
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_psr.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_psr.c
> > index d18baeb971bb..ba92f71b82d9 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_psr.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_psr.c
> > @@ -559,20 +559,10 @@ static void
> > intel_dp_get_su_granularity(struct
> > intel_dp *intel_dp)  static void _panel_replay_init_dpcd(struct
> > intel_dp
> > *intel_dp)  {
> >         struct drm_i915_private *i915 = dp_to_i915(intel_dp);
> > -       u8 pr_dpcd = 0;
> > -
> > -       intel_dp->psr.sink_panel_replay_support = false;
> > -       drm_dp_dpcd_readb(&intel_dp->aux, DP_PANEL_REPLAY_CAP,
> > &pr_dpcd);
> > -
> > -       if (!(pr_dpcd & DP_PANEL_REPLAY_SUPPORT)) {
> > -               drm_dbg_kms(&i915->drm,
> > -                           "Panel replay is not supported by
> > panel\n");
> 
> Panel Replat not supported print are we removing purposefully or
> missed somehow in refactoring?

I removed it purposefully. We do not have that for PSR either. I don't
see that as a reasonable to printout what features panel is not
supporting. Having debug printout saying if it's supported is enough to
my opinion. Do you agree or do you want to keep it?

BR,

Jouni Högander
> 
> Regards,
> Animesh
> > -               return;
> > -       }
> > 
> >         intel_dp->psr.sink_panel_replay_support = true;
> > 
> > -       if (pr_dpcd & DP_PANEL_REPLAY_SU_SUPPORT)
> > +       if (intel_dp->pr_dpcd & DP_PANEL_REPLAY_SU_SUPPORT)
> >                 intel_dp->psr.sink_panel_replay_su_support = true;
> > 
> >         drm_dbg_kms(&i915->drm,
> > @@ -630,10 +620,13 @@ static void _psr_init_dpcd(struct intel_dp
> > *intel_dp)
> > 
> >  void intel_psr_init_dpcd(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)  {
> > -       _panel_replay_init_dpcd(intel_dp);
> > -
> >         drm_dp_dpcd_read(&intel_dp->aux, DP_PSR_SUPPORT, intel_dp-
> > > psr_dpcd,
> >                          sizeof(intel_dp->psr_dpcd));
> > +       drm_dp_dpcd_readb(&intel_dp->aux, DP_PANEL_REPLAY_CAP,
> > +                         &intel_dp->pr_dpcd);
> > +
> > +       if (intel_dp->pr_dpcd & DP_PANEL_REPLAY_SUPPORT)
> > +               _panel_replay_init_dpcd(intel_dp);
> > 
> >         if (intel_dp->psr_dpcd[0])
> >                 _psr_init_dpcd(intel_dp);
> > --
> > 2.34.1
>