On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 06:26:06PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 04:11:32PM -0700, Manasi Navare wrote:
> >> Currently intel_dp_check_link_status() tries to retrain the link if
> >> Clock recovery or Channel EQ for any of the lanes indicated by
> >> intel_dp->lane_count is not set. However these values cached in intel_dp
> >> structure can be stale if link training has failed for these values
> >> during previous modeset. Or these values can get stale since we have
> >> now re read the DPCD registers or it can be 0 in case of connected boot
> >> case.
> >>
> >> This patch validates these values against the common_rates and max lane
> >> count values.
> >>
> >> This is absolutely required incase the common_rates or max lane count
> >> are now different due to link fallback.
> >>
> >> Cc: Ville Syrjala <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Manasi Navare <manasi.d.navare@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++---
> >> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> >> index fd96a6c..51fa6b5 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> >> @@ -295,6 +295,23 @@ static int intel_dp_link_rate_index(struct intel_dp *intel_dp,
> >> return -1;
> >> }
> >>
> >> +static bool intel_dp_link_params_is_valid(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> >> +{
> >> + int common_rates[DP_MAX_SUPPORTED_RATES];
> >> + int link_rate_index;
> >> +
> >> + link_rate_index = intel_dp_link_rate_index(intel_dp,
> >> + common_rates,
> >> + intel_dp->link_rate);
> >
> > Hmm. I thought we started to store the common rates somewhere more
> > permanent, or did I imagine that?
>
> That series got stalled waiting for Manasi's stuff to land... which
> means it's now conflicting and pending rebase, and still waiting. :(
>
> J.
>
Hmm, yes but if you want I can work on rebasing it after these two patches
land. That series is really required.
>
> >
> >> + if (link_rate_index < 0)
> >> + return false;
> >> + if (!intel_dp->lane_count ||
> >> + (intel_dp->lane_count > intel_dp_max_lane_count(intel_dp)))
> >
> > Needless parens.
> >
Ok, will remove that.
> >> + return false;
> >> +
> >> + return true;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> int intel_dp_get_link_train_fallback_values(struct intel_dp *intel_dp,
> >> int link_rate, uint8_t lane_count)
> >> {
> >> @@ -4224,9 +4241,10 @@ intel_dp_check_link_status(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> >> if (!to_intel_crtc(intel_encoder->base.crtc)->active)
> >> return;
> >>
> >> - /* FIXME: we need to synchronize this sort of stuff with hardware
> >> - * readout. Currently fast link training doesn't work on boot-up. */
> >
> > You shouldn't remove the FIXME. It's still totally valid.
> >
But that check is now incorporated in validating the params.
So why is separate check required?
Or are you just saying leave the FIXME comment?
Manasi
> >> - if (!intel_dp->lane_count)
> >> + /* Validate the cached values of intel_dp->link_rate and
> >> + * intel_dp->lane_count before attempting to retrain.
> >> + */
> >> + if (!intel_dp_link_params_is_valid(intel_dp))
> >> return;
> >>
> >> /* Retrain if Channel EQ or CR not ok */
> >> --
> >> 2.1.4
>
> --
> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
