Re: [PATCH 1/3] drm: Add retries for lspcon status check

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

 



Regards

Shashank


On 8/22/2017 8:24 PM, Imre Deak wrote:
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 08:23:49PM +0530, Shashank Sharma wrote:
It's an observation during some CI tests that few LSPCON chips
respond slow while system is under load, and need some delay
while reading current mode status using i2c-over-aux channel.

This patch:
- Adds few retries and delays before declaring a read
   failure from LSPCON hardware.
- Changes the debug level of the print from ERROR->DEBUG
   whereas another patch in I915 will add an ERROR message
   from the caller when we have timed out all our limits.

V2: addressed review comments from Imre, and added r-b
     - use int instead of u8 for counter
     - use for loop instead of do...while();
V3: Rebase

Cc: Ville Syrjala <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Imre Deak <imre.deak@xxxxxxxxx>

Reviewed-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Shashank Sharma <shashank.sharma@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Mahesh Kumar <mahesh1.kumar@xxxxxxxxx>
---
  drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_dual_mode_helper.c | 14 +++++++++++---
  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_dual_mode_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_dual_mode_helper.c
index 80e62f6..fc8c7ac 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_dual_mode_helper.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_dual_mode_helper.c
@@ -409,6 +409,7 @@ int drm_lspcon_get_mode(struct i2c_adapter *adapter,
  			enum drm_lspcon_mode *mode)
  {
  	u8 data;
+	int retry;
  	int ret = 0;
if (!mode) {
@@ -417,10 +418,17 @@ int drm_lspcon_get_mode(struct i2c_adapter *adapter,
  	}
/* Read Status: i2c over aux */
-	ret = drm_dp_dual_mode_read(adapter, DP_DUAL_MODE_LSPCON_CURRENT_MODE,
-				    &data, sizeof(data));
+	for (retry = 5; ; retry--) {
+		ret = drm_dp_dual_mode_read(adapter,
+					    DP_DUAL_MODE_LSPCON_CURRENT_MODE,
+					    &data, sizeof(data));
Why do we still need the retry here with patch 3/3?
The only reason I can think of would be I am paranoid :) ? I was thinking of going with this one first and see the CI results, and then later remove and optimize. But I guess you are right, this would be too many retries
here, and I should do it other way around.

- Shashank
+		if (!ret || !retry)
+			break;
+		usleep_range(500, 1000);
+	}
+
  	if (ret < 0) {
-		DRM_ERROR("LSPCON read(0x80, 0x41) failed\n");
+		DRM_DEBUG_KMS("LSPCON read(0x80, 0x41) failed\n");
  		return -EFAULT;
  	}
--
2.7.4


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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]
  Powered by Linux