On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 11:58:16AM -0800, Eric Anholt wrote: > Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Tue, 31 Jan 2017, Eric Anholt <eric@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Martin Peres <martin.peres@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > >>> Despite all the careful planing of the kernel, a link may become > >>> insufficient to handle the currently-set mode. At this point, the > >>> kernel should mark this particular configuration as being broken > >>> and potentially prune the mode before setting the offending connector's > >>> link-status to BAD and send the userspace a hotplug event. This may > >>> happen right after a modeset or later on. > >>> > >>> When available, we should use the link-status information to reset > >>> the wanted mode. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Martin Peres <martin.peres@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> If I understand this right, there are two failure modes being handled: > >> > >> 1) A mode that won't actually work because the link isn't good enough. > >> > >> 2) A mode that should work, but link parameters were too optimistic and > >> if we just ask the kernel to set the mode again it'll use more > >> conservative parameters that work. > >> > >> This patch seems good for 2). For 1), the drmmode_set_mode_major is > >> going to set our old mode back. Won't the modeset then fail to link > >> train again, and bring us back into this loop? The only escape that I > >> see would be some other userspace responding to the advertised mode list > >> changing, and then asking X to modeset to something new. > >> > >> To avoid that failure busy loop, should we re-fetching modes at this > >> point, and only re-setting if our mode still exists? > > > > Disclaimer: I don't know anything about the internals of the modesetting > > driver. > > > > Perhaps we can identify the two cases now, but I'd put this more > > generally: if the link status has gone bad, it's an indicator to > > userspace that the circumstances may have changed, and userspace should > > query the kernel for the list of available modes again. It should no > > longer trust information obtained prior to getting the bad link status, > > including the current mode. > > > > But specifically, I think you're right, and AFAICT asking for the list > > of modes again is the only way for the userspace to distinguish between > > the two cases. I don't think there's a shortcut for deciding the current > > mode is still valid. > > To avoid the busy-loop problem, I think I'd like this patch to re-query > the kernel to ask about the current mode list, and only try to re-set > the mode if our mode is still there. > > If the mode isn't there, then it's up to the DE to take action in > response to the notification of new modes. If you don't have a DE to > take appropriate action, you're kind of out of luck. > > As far as the ABI goes, this seems fine to me. The only concern I had > about ABI was having to walk all the connectors on every uevent to see > if any had gone bad -- couldn't we have a flag of some sort about what > the uevent indicates? But uevents should be super rare, so I'd say the > kernel could go ahead with the current plan. Yes I agree. The kernel sets the link status BAD as soona s link training fails but does not prune the modes until a new modelist is requested by the userspace. So this patch should re query the mode list as soon as it sees the link status BAD in order for the kernel to validate the modes again based on new link paarmeters and send a new mode list back. Remember that it could still not prune any mode if the same mode is valid with lower bpp, it will still keep the mode list same and when the userspace retries the same mode, it will do a modeset at lower bpp (say 18bpp) and still succeed. (Same mode at lower bpp still better than dropping the resolution) Regards Manasi _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
