() Hello Hans, Sean, On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 4:12 AM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi All, > > On 3/9/22 18:53, Rajat Jain wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 7:06 AM Sean Paul <sean@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> From: Sean Paul <seanpaul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> This patch adds the necessary hooks to make amdgpu aware of privacy > >> screens. On devices with privacy screen drivers (such as thinkpad-acpi), > >> the amdgpu driver will defer probe until it's ready and then sync the sw > >> and hw state on each commit the connector is involved and enabled. > >> > >> Changes in v2: > >> -Tweaked the drm_privacy_screen_get() error check to avoid logging > >> errors when privacy screen is absent (Hans) > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Sean Paul <seanpaul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/477640/ #v1 > >> --- > >> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_drv.c | 9 +++++++++ > >> .../gpu/drm/amd/display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm.c | 3 +++ > >> .../amd/display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm_mst_types.c | 16 +++++++++++++++- > >> 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_drv.c > >> index 2ab675123ae3..e2cfae56c020 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_drv.c > >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_drv.c > >> @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ > >> #include <drm/drm_aperture.h> > >> #include <drm/drm_drv.h> > >> #include <drm/drm_gem.h> > >> +#include <drm/drm_privacy_screen_consumer.h> > >> #include <drm/drm_vblank.h> > >> #include <drm/drm_managed.h> > >> #include "amdgpu_drv.h" > >> @@ -1988,6 +1989,7 @@ static int amdgpu_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, > >> { > >> struct drm_device *ddev; > >> struct amdgpu_device *adev; > >> + struct drm_privacy_screen *privacy_screen; > >> unsigned long flags = ent->driver_data; > >> int ret, retry = 0, i; > >> bool supports_atomic = false; > >> @@ -2063,6 +2065,13 @@ static int amdgpu_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, > >> size = pci_resource_len(pdev, 0); > >> is_fw_fb = amdgpu_is_fw_framebuffer(base, size); > >> > >> + /* If the LCD panel has a privacy screen, defer probe until its ready */ > >> + privacy_screen = drm_privacy_screen_get(&pdev->dev, NULL); > >> + if (IS_ERR(privacy_screen) && PTR_ERR(privacy_screen) == -EPROBE_DEFER) > >> + return -EPROBE_DEFER; > >> + > >> + drm_privacy_screen_put(privacy_screen); > >> + > >> /* Get rid of things like offb */ > >> ret = drm_aperture_remove_conflicting_pci_framebuffers(pdev, &amdgpu_kms_driver); > >> if (ret) > >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm.c > >> index e1d3db3fe8de..9e2bb6523add 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm.c > >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm.c > >> @@ -9781,6 +9781,9 @@ static void amdgpu_dm_atomic_commit_tail(struct drm_atomic_state *state) > >> if (acrtc) { > >> new_crtc_state = drm_atomic_get_new_crtc_state(state, &acrtc->base); > >> old_crtc_state = drm_atomic_get_old_crtc_state(state, &acrtc->base); > >> + > >> + /* Sync the privacy screen state between hw and sw */ > >> + drm_connector_update_privacy_screen(new_con_state); > >> } > >> > >> /* Skip any modesets/resets */ > >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm_mst_types.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm_mst_types.c > >> index 740435ae3997..594a8002975a 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm_mst_types.c > >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm_mst_types.c > >> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ > >> #include <drm/drm_atomic_helper.h> > >> #include <drm/dp/drm_dp_mst_helper.h> > >> #include <drm/dp/drm_dp_helper.h> > >> +#include <drm/drm_privacy_screen_consumer.h> > >> #include "dm_services.h" > >> #include "amdgpu.h" > >> #include "amdgpu_dm.h" > >> @@ -506,6 +507,7 @@ void amdgpu_dm_initialize_dp_connector(struct amdgpu_display_manager *dm, > >> struct amdgpu_dm_connector *aconnector, > >> int link_index) > >> { > >> + struct drm_device *dev = dm->ddev; > >> struct dc_link_settings max_link_enc_cap = {0}; > >> > >> aconnector->dm_dp_aux.aux.name = > >> @@ -519,8 +521,20 @@ void amdgpu_dm_initialize_dp_connector(struct amdgpu_display_manager *dm, > >> drm_dp_cec_register_connector(&aconnector->dm_dp_aux.aux, > >> &aconnector->base); > >> > >> - if (aconnector->base.connector_type == DRM_MODE_CONNECTOR_eDP) > >> + if (aconnector->base.connector_type == DRM_MODE_CONNECTOR_eDP) { > >> + struct drm_privacy_screen *privacy_screen) > >> + > >> + /* Reference given up in drm_connector_cleanup() */ > >> + privacy_screen = drm_privacy_screen_get(dev->dev, NULL); > > > > Can we try to be more specific when looking up for privacy screen, e.g.: > > > > privacy_screen = drm_privacy_screen_get(dev->dev, "eDP-1"); > > (and then also making the corresponding change in arch_init_data[] in > > drm_privacy_screen_x86.c" > > So I just checked and yes I think we can be more specific at least > for the thinkpad_acpi supported models. See the attached patch > which has been tested on a ThinkPad T14 gen 1 with a builtin privacy-screen. > > Rajat, can you adjust the chrome code in drivers/gpu/drm/drm_privacy_screen_x86.c > to match and check that with the chrome code changes, my patch does not break > things on chromebooks? (Note your changes will need to be squashed into the > patch so that we change all of this in one go) . Thanks, I just confirmed that with a change similar to yours (use "eDP-1"), it works fine on the Intel chromebooks at my end, so feel free to do it: =================================================== diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_privacy_screen_x86.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_privacy_screen_x86.c index 88802cd7a1ee..894beefb6628 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_privacy_screen_x86.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_privacy_screen_x86.c @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ static const struct arch_init_data arch_init_data[] __initconst = { { .lookup = { .dev_id = NULL, - .con_id = NULL, + .con_id = "eDP-1", .provider = "privacy_screen-GOOG0010:00", }, .detect = detect_chromeos_privacy_screen, diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_ddi.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_ddi.c index 1682ace5cd53..2666ba7b5a28 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_ddi.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_ddi.c @@ -4250,7 +4250,7 @@ intel_ddi_init_dp_connector(struct intel_digital_port *dig_port) struct drm_device *dev = dig_port->base.base.dev; struct drm_privacy_screen *privacy_screen; - privacy_screen = drm_privacy_screen_get(dev->dev, NULL); + privacy_screen = drm_privacy_screen_get(dev->dev, connector->base.name); if (!IS_ERR(privacy_screen)) { drm_connector_attach_privacy_screen_provider(&connector->base, privacy_screen); diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c index 89be498127e4..b2903a55f910 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c @@ -13360,7 +13360,7 @@ bool intel_modeset_probe_defer(struct pci_dev *pdev) return true; /* If the LCD panel has a privacy-screen, wait for it */ - privacy_screen = drm_privacy_screen_get(&pdev->dev, NULL); + privacy_screen = drm_privacy_screen_get(&pdev->dev, "eDP-1"); if (IS_ERR(privacy_screen) && PTR_ERR(privacy_screen) == -EPROBE_DEFER) return true; ================================================= I found it a little surprising though. From what I remembered from my early venture, was that connector->base.name did not get filled in at the time intel_ddi_init_dp_connector() was called, but I guess I was remembering it wrong. > > Sean, same request to you, can you adjust your amdgpu patch to match > the i915 changes in the attached patch and then check if a kernel > with both changes still works ? Defer to Sean since I do not have the AMD chromebook to test. Thanks & Best Regards, Rajat > > Regards, > > Hans > > > > > > > My comment applies to this driver as well as to i915. The reason being > > today there is only 1 internal display with privacy screen so we can > > just assume that there shall be only 1 privacy-screen and that shall > > apply to eDP-1/internal display. But dual display systems are not far > > enough out, and perhaps external monitors with inbuilt > > privacy-screens? > > > > Essentially the gap today is that today on Chromeos ACPI side, the > > device GOOG0010 represents the privacy-screen attached to the internal > > display/eDP-1, but there isn't a way to make it clear in the i915 and > > now amdgpu code. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Rajat > > > > > >> + if (!IS_ERR(privacy_screen)) { > >> + drm_connector_attach_privacy_screen_provider(&aconnector->base, > >> + privacy_screen); > >> + } else if (PTR_ERR(privacy_screen) != -ENODEV) { > >> + drm_err(dev, "Error getting privacy screen, ret=%d\n", > >> + PTR_ERR(privacy_screen)); > >> + } > >> return; > >> + } > >> > >> dc_link_dp_get_max_link_enc_cap(aconnector->dc_link, &max_link_enc_cap); > >> aconnector->mst_mgr.cbs = &dm_mst_cbs; > >> -- > >> Sean Paul, Software Engineer, Google / Chromium OS > >> > >
