[PATCH v4] drm/i915/display: Optimize panel power-on wait time

Jani Nikula jani.nikula at intel.com
Tue Jul 29 08:17:48 UTC 2025


On Mon, 28 Jul 2025, Dibin Moolakadan Subrahmanian <dibin.moolakadan.subrahmanian at intel.com> wrote:
>  The current wait_panel_status() uses intel_de_wait() with a long timeout
>  (5000ms), which is suboptimal on Xe platforms where the underlying
>  xe_mmio_wait32() employs an exponential backoff strategy. This leads
>  to unnecessary delays during resume or power-on  when the panel becomes
>  ready earlier than the full timeout.

It's not about the timeout, it's about the exponentially increasing poll
delay.

>  This patch replaces intel_de_wait() with read_poll_timeout() +
>  intel_de_read() to actively poll the register at given interval and exit
>  early when panel is ready, improving resume latency

Please do not say "this patch" in commit messages. Just use the
imperative "Replace ...".

The commit messages is unnecessarily indented with a space.

> Changes in v2:
>  Replaced  two-phase intel_de_wait() with  read_poll_timeout()
>  + intel_de_read()
>
> Changes in v3:
>  - Add poll_interval_ms argument  'wait_panel_status' function.
>  - Modify 'wait_panel_status' callers with proper poll interval
>
> Changes in v4:
>  - Change 'wait_panel_off' poll interval to 10ms
>
> Signed-off-by: Dibin Moolakadan Subrahmanian <dibin.moolakadan.subrahmanian at intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_pps.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_pps.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_pps.c
> index b64d0b30f5b1..56ef835fc2eb 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_pps.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_pps.c
> @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@
>  #include "intel_pps.h"
>  #include "intel_pps_regs.h"
>  #include "intel_quirks.h"
> +#include <linux/iopoll.h>

Please look at how includes are ordered in every single file in i915.

>  static void vlv_steal_power_sequencer(struct intel_display *display,
>  				      enum pipe pipe);
> @@ -600,14 +601,18 @@ void intel_pps_check_power_unlocked(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
>  #define IDLE_CYCLE_MASK		(PP_ON | PP_SEQUENCE_MASK | PP_CYCLE_DELAY_ACTIVE | PP_SEQUENCE_STATE_MASK)
>  #define IDLE_CYCLE_VALUE	(0     | PP_SEQUENCE_NONE | 0                     | PP_SEQUENCE_STATE_OFF_IDLE)
>  
> +#define PANEL_MAXIMUM_ON_TIME_MS		(5000)

The name of the macro is misleading. For single-use things, maybe better
to just keep the value inline as it were.

Side note, the parenthesis are superfluous here.

> +
>  static void intel_pps_verify_state(struct intel_dp *intel_dp);
>  
>  static void wait_panel_status(struct intel_dp *intel_dp,
> -			      u32 mask, u32 value)
> +			      u32 mask, u32 value, int poll_interval_ms)

Can we not add the extra parameter please? Can we have a meaningful
default instead? 10 ms? Is the 1 ms poll interval really required?

>  {
>  	struct intel_display *display = to_intel_display(intel_dp);
>  	struct intel_digital_port *dig_port = dp_to_dig_port(intel_dp);
>  	i915_reg_t pp_stat_reg, pp_ctrl_reg;
> +	int ret;
> +	u32 reg_val;

Nitpick, usually just "val".

>  	lockdep_assert_held(&display->pps.mutex);
>  
> @@ -624,14 +629,27 @@ static void wait_panel_status(struct intel_dp *intel_dp,
>  		    intel_de_read(display, pp_stat_reg),
>  		    intel_de_read(display, pp_ctrl_reg));
>  
> -	if (intel_de_wait(display, pp_stat_reg, mask, value, 5000))
> -		drm_err(display->drm,
> -			"[ENCODER:%d:%s] %s panel status timeout: PP_STATUS: 0x%08x PP_CONTROL: 0x%08x\n",
> -			dig_port->base.base.base.id, dig_port->base.base.name,
> -			pps_name(intel_dp),
> -			intel_de_read(display, pp_stat_reg),
> -			intel_de_read(display, pp_ctrl_reg));
> +	if (poll_interval_ms <= 0)
> +		poll_interval_ms = 1; //if <0 is passed go with 1ms

Without the parameter, we could get rid of checks like this.

The comment just duplicates what the code already says.

Also, we don't use // comments.

> +
> +	ret = read_poll_timeout(intel_de_read, reg_val,
> +				((reg_val & mask) == value),
> +				(poll_interval_ms * 1000),  // poll intervell
> +				(PANEL_MAXIMUM_ON_TIME_MS * 1000),  // total timeout (us)
> +				true,
> +				display, pp_stat_reg);

The outer parenthesis in the parameters are superfluous.

The comments are useless (and have a typo too).

> +
> +	if (ret == 0)
> +		goto panel_wait_complete;

We do use goto in kernel, but primarily for error handling. Please use

	if (ret)

here, and the whole drm_err() thing remains unchanged, and doesn't
become part of the patch...

>  
> +	drm_err(display->drm,
> +		"dibin [ENCODER:%d:%s] %s panel status timeout: PP_STATUS: 0x%08x PP_CONTROL: 0x%08x\n",

...and it'll be easier to notice you've left your name in the debug
logs. Oops.

> +		dig_port->base.base.base.id, dig_port->base.base.name,
> +		pps_name(intel_dp),
> +		intel_de_read(display, pp_stat_reg),
> +		intel_de_read(display, pp_ctrl_reg));
> +
> +panel_wait_complete:
>  	drm_dbg_kms(display->drm, "Wait complete\n");
>  }
>  
> @@ -644,7 +662,8 @@ static void wait_panel_on(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
>  		    "[ENCODER:%d:%s] %s wait for panel power on\n",
>  		    dig_port->base.base.base.id, dig_port->base.base.name,
>  		    pps_name(intel_dp));
> -	wait_panel_status(intel_dp, IDLE_ON_MASK, IDLE_ON_VALUE);
> +
> +	wait_panel_status(intel_dp, IDLE_ON_MASK, IDLE_ON_VALUE, 20);
>  }
>  
>  static void wait_panel_off(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> @@ -656,7 +675,7 @@ static void wait_panel_off(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
>  		    "[ENCODER:%d:%s] %s wait for panel power off time\n",
>  		    dig_port->base.base.base.id, dig_port->base.base.name,
>  		    pps_name(intel_dp));
> -	wait_panel_status(intel_dp, IDLE_OFF_MASK, IDLE_OFF_VALUE);
> +	wait_panel_status(intel_dp, IDLE_OFF_MASK, IDLE_OFF_VALUE, 10);
>  }
>  
>  static void wait_panel_power_cycle(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> @@ -683,7 +702,7 @@ static void wait_panel_power_cycle(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
>  	if (remaining)
>  		wait_remaining_ms_from_jiffies(jiffies, remaining);
>  
> -	wait_panel_status(intel_dp, IDLE_CYCLE_MASK, IDLE_CYCLE_VALUE);
> +	wait_panel_status(intel_dp, IDLE_CYCLE_MASK, IDLE_CYCLE_VALUE, 1);
>  }
>  
>  void intel_pps_wait_power_cycle(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel


More information about the Intel-gfx mailing list