Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 32/40] drm/i915: Enable superior HDCP ver that is capable

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On Friday 18 May 2018 06:19 PM, Shankar, Uma wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: Intel-gfx [mailto:intel-gfx-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Ramalingam C
Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 7:28 PM
To: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
seanpaul@xxxxxxxxxxxx; daniel@xxxxxxxx; chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Winkler, Tomas <tomas.winkler@xxxxxxxxx>;
Usyskin, Alexander <alexander.usyskin@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Vivi, Rodrigo <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 32/40] drm/i915: Enable superior HDCP ver that is
capable

Considering that HDCP2.2 is more secure than HDCP1.4, When a setup supports
HDCP2.2 and HDCP1.4, HDCP2.2 will be enabled.

v2:
  Included few optimization suggestions [Chris Wilson]
  Commit message is updated as per the rebased version.
v3:
  No changes.

Signed-off-by: Ramalingam C <ramalingam.c@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hdcp.c | 76
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 69 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hdcp.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hdcp.c
index 383e35689fbd..01701d7b7b07 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hdcp.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hdcp.c
@@ -27,6 +27,57 @@ static int _intel_hdcp2_disable(struct intel_connector
*connector);  static void intel_hdcp2_check_work(struct work_struct *work);
static int intel_hdcp2_check_link(struct intel_connector *connector);  static int
intel_hdcp2_init(struct intel_connector *connector);
+static inline
+int intel_hdcp_read_valid_bksv(struct intel_digital_port *intel_dig_port,
+			       const struct intel_hdcp_shim *shim, u8 *bksv); static
struct
+intel_digital_port *conn_to_dig_port(struct intel_connector
+*connector);
+
+static inline
Don’t have it as inline.

+bool panel_supports_hdcp(struct intel_connector *connector) {
+	struct intel_digital_port *intel_dig_port = conn_to_dig_port(connector);
+	struct intel_hdcp *hdcp = &connector->hdcp;
+	bool capable = false;
+	u8 bksv[5];
+
+	if (hdcp->hdcp_shim) {
+		if (hdcp->hdcp_shim->hdcp_capable) {
+			hdcp->hdcp_shim->hdcp_capable(intel_dig_port,
&capable);
+		} else {
+			if (!intel_hdcp_read_valid_bksv(intel_dig_port,
+							hdcp->hdcp_shim,
bksv))
+				capable = true;
+		}
+	}
Leave a blank line.

+	return capable;
+}
+
+static inline
+bool panel_supports_hdcp2(struct intel_connector *connector) {
+	struct intel_digital_port *intel_dig_port = conn_to_dig_port(connector);
+	struct intel_hdcp *hdcp = &connector->hdcp;
+	bool capable = false;
+
+	if (hdcp->hdcp2_supported)
+		hdcp->hdcp_shim->hdcp_2_2_capable(intel_dig_port, &capable);
This looks a bit odd. We are going inside if hdcp2.2 is supported and checking for capable.
I guess it needs a bit of renaming to make them implicit(Supported and capable sounds
confusing). I believe supported is for platform and capable is for panel ?
As function name says, here we are checking the panel's hdcp2.2 compliance if the platform supports it.
I will add Explicit comment here.

Ram

+
+	return capable;
+}
+
+/* Is HDCP1.4 capable on Platform and Panel */ static inline bool
+intel_hdcp_capable(struct intel_connector *connector) {
+	return (connector->hdcp.hdcp_shim &&
panel_supports_hdcp(connector));
+}
+
+/* Is HDCP2.2 capable on Platform and Panel */ static inline bool
+intel_hdcp2_capable(struct intel_connector *connector) {
+	return (connector->hdcp.hdcp2_supported &&
+		panel_supports_hdcp2(connector));
+}

static int intel_hdcp_poll_ksv_fifo(struct intel_digital_port *intel_dig_port,
				    const struct intel_hdcp_shim *shim) @@ -
722,20 +773,27 @@ int intel_hdcp_init(struct intel_connector *connector,  int
intel_hdcp_enable(struct intel_connector *connector)  {
	struct intel_hdcp *hdcp = &connector->hdcp;
-	int ret;
+	int ret = -EINVAL;

	if (!hdcp->hdcp_shim)
		return -ENOENT;

	mutex_lock(&hdcp->hdcp_mutex);

-	ret = _intel_hdcp_enable(connector);
-	if (ret)
-		goto out;
+	/*
+	 * Considering that HDCP2.2 is more secure than HDCP1.4, If the setup
+	 * is capable of HDCP2.2, it is preferred to use HDCP2.2.
+	 */
+	if (intel_hdcp2_capable(connector))
+		ret = _intel_hdcp2_enable(connector);
+	else if (intel_hdcp_capable(connector))
+		ret = _intel_hdcp_enable(connector);
+
+	if (!ret) {
+		hdcp->hdcp_value =
DRM_MODE_CONTENT_PROTECTION_ENABLED;
+		schedule_work(&hdcp->hdcp_prop_work);
+	}

-	hdcp->hdcp_value = DRM_MODE_CONTENT_PROTECTION_ENABLED;
-	schedule_work(&hdcp->hdcp_prop_work);
-out:
	mutex_unlock(&hdcp->hdcp_mutex);
	return ret;
}
@@ -752,10 +810,14 @@ int intel_hdcp_disable(struct intel_connector
*connector)

	if (hdcp->hdcp_value !=
DRM_MODE_CONTENT_PROTECTION_UNDESIRED) {
		hdcp->hdcp_value =
DRM_MODE_CONTENT_PROTECTION_UNDESIRED;
+		if (hdcp->hdcp2_supported)
+			_intel_hdcp2_disable(connector);
+
		ret = _intel_hdcp_disable(connector);
	}

	mutex_unlock(&hdcp->hdcp_mutex);
+	cancel_delayed_work_sync(&hdcp->hdcp2_check_work);
	cancel_delayed_work_sync(&hdcp->hdcp_check_work);
	return ret;
}
--
2.7.4

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel




[Index of Archives]     [Linux DRI Users]     [Linux Intel Graphics]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux