On Fri, 23 Apr 2021, Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On HP Fury G7 Workstations, graphics output is re-routed from Intel GFX > to discrete GFX after S3. This is not desirable, because userspace will > treat connected display as a new one, losing display settings. > > The expected behavior is to let discrete GFX drives all external > displays. > > The platform in question uses ACPI method \_SB.PCI0.HGME to enable MUX. > The method is inside the BXT _DSM, so add the _DSM and call it > accordingly. > > I also tested some MUX-less and iGPU only laptops with the BXT _DSM, no > regression was found. I don't know whether this change is the right thing to do. I don't know if it isn't either. Need to look into it. However, I have some general comments, inline. > > v2: > - Forward declare struct pci_dev. > > Closes: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/3113 > References: https://lore.kernel.org/intel-gfx/1460040732-31417-4-git-send-email-animesh.manna@xxxxxxxxx/ > Signed-off-by: Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_acpi.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++ > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_acpi.h | 3 +++ > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 5 +++++ > 3 files changed, 25 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_acpi.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_acpi.c > index 833d0c1be4f1..c7b57c22dce3 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_acpi.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_acpi.c > @@ -14,11 +14,16 @@ > > #define INTEL_DSM_REVISION_ID 1 /* For Calpella anyway... */ > #define INTEL_DSM_FN_PLATFORM_MUX_INFO 1 /* No args */ > +#define INTEL_DSM_FN_PLATFORM_BXT_MUX_INFO 0 /* No args */ > > static const guid_t intel_dsm_guid = > GUID_INIT(0x7ed873d3, 0xc2d0, 0x4e4f, > 0xa8, 0x54, 0x0f, 0x13, 0x17, 0xb0, 0x1c, 0x2c); > > +static const guid_t intel_bxt_dsm_guid = > + GUID_INIT(0x3e5b41c6, 0xeb1d, 0x4260, > + 0x9d, 0x15, 0xc7, 0x1f, 0xba, 0xda, 0xe4, 0x14); > + > static char *intel_dsm_port_name(u8 id) > { > switch (id) { > @@ -176,6 +181,18 @@ void intel_unregister_dsm_handler(void) > { > } > > +void intel_bxt_dsm_detect(struct pci_dev *pdev) Please leave out bxt from the naming and make the argument struct drm_i915_private *i915. Mmh, then it conflicts with existing intel_dsm_detect(), maybe we need a more descriptive name altogether? > +{ > + acpi_handle dhandle; > + > + dhandle = ACPI_HANDLE(&pdev->dev); > + if (!dhandle) > + return; > + > + acpi_evaluate_dsm(dhandle, &intel_bxt_dsm_guid, INTEL_DSM_REVISION_ID, > + INTEL_DSM_FN_PLATFORM_BXT_MUX_INFO, NULL); > +} > + > /* > * ACPI Specification, Revision 5.0, Appendix B.3.2 _DOD (Enumerate All Devices > * Attached to the Display Adapter). > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_acpi.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_acpi.h > index e8b068661d22..d2d560d63bb3 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_acpi.h > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_acpi.h > @@ -6,15 +6,18 @@ > #ifndef __INTEL_ACPI_H__ > #define __INTEL_ACPI_H__ > > +struct pci_dev; > struct drm_i915_private; > > #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI > void intel_register_dsm_handler(void); > void intel_unregister_dsm_handler(void); > +void intel_bxt_dsm_detect(struct pci_dev *pdev); > void intel_acpi_device_id_update(struct drm_i915_private *i915); > #else > static inline void intel_register_dsm_handler(void) { return; } > static inline void intel_unregister_dsm_handler(void) { return; } > +static inline void intel_bxt_dsm_detect(struct pci_dev *pdev) { return; } > static inline > void intel_acpi_device_id_update(struct drm_i915_private *i915) { return; } > #endif /* CONFIG_ACPI */ > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c > index 785dcf20c77b..57b12068aab4 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c > @@ -853,6 +853,8 @@ int i915_driver_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_id *ent) > if (ret) > goto out_cleanup_gem; > > + intel_bxt_dsm_detect(pdev); > + The call sites in i915_driver_probe() and i915_drm_resume() seem rather arbitrary. Long term, I'd like most or all of the display stuff like this placed in appropriate intel_modeset_*() functions in display/intel_display.c. I'm not keen on having new and very specific calls in the higher levels. At probe, feels like the routing should happen earlier, before output setup? In intel_modeset_init_nogem()? > i915_driver_register(i915); > > enable_rpm_wakeref_asserts(&i915->runtime_pm); > @@ -1215,6 +1217,7 @@ int i915_suspend_switcheroo(struct drm_i915_private *i915, pm_message_t state) > static int i915_drm_resume(struct drm_device *dev) > { > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dev); > + struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(dev_priv->drm.dev); > int ret; > > disable_rpm_wakeref_asserts(&dev_priv->runtime_pm); > @@ -1271,6 +1274,8 @@ static int i915_drm_resume(struct drm_device *dev) > > intel_gvt_resume(dev_priv); > > + intel_bxt_dsm_detect(pdev); > + In intel_display_resume() perhaps? (Yay for confusing naming wrt display and modeset, it's a work-in-progress.) BR, Jani. > enable_rpm_wakeref_asserts(&dev_priv->runtime_pm); > > return 0; -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
