On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 05:26:54AM +0000, Dhinakaran Pandiyan wrote:
> DPCD read for the eDP is complete by the time intel_psr_init() is
> called, which means we can avoid initializing PSR structures and state
> if there is no sink support.
>
> Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 7 ++++++-
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c | 9 +++++++++
> 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> index 64e5a263458c..1a7b28f62570 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> @@ -2532,14 +2532,19 @@ static int i915_edp_psr_status(struct seq_file *m, void *data)
> u32 stat[3];
> enum pipe pipe;
> bool enabled = false;
> + bool sink_support;
>
> if (!HAS_PSR(dev_priv))
> return -ENODEV;
>
> + sink_support = dev_priv->psr.sink_support;
> + seq_printf(m, "Sink_Support: %s\n", yesno(sink_support));
> + if (!sink_support)
> + return 0;
> +
> intel_runtime_pm_get(dev_priv);
>
> mutex_lock(&dev_priv->psr.lock);
> - seq_printf(m, "Sink_Support: %s\n", yesno(dev_priv->psr.sink_support));
> seq_printf(m, "Enabled: %s\n", yesno((bool)dev_priv->psr.enabled));
> seq_printf(m, "Active: %s\n", yesno(dev_priv->psr.active));
> seq_printf(m, "Busy frontbuffer bits: 0x%03x\n",
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> index 76339cf387cb..095e0a5a8574 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> @@ -503,6 +503,9 @@ void intel_psr_enable(struct intel_dp *intel_dp,
> if (!crtc_state->has_psr)
> return;
>
> + if (WARN_ON(!CAN_PSR(dev_priv)))
> + return;
hmm... I believe we will see this warning sooner than later...
has_psr is not the same as CAN_PSR.
also, btw I didn't like all this crtc_state has_psr x has_psr2. :/
probably this series could also unify that and clean it up.
to many has_psr like cases.
> +
> WARN_ON(dev_priv->drrs.dp);
> mutex_lock(&dev_priv->psr.lock);
> if (dev_priv->psr.enabled) {
> @@ -633,6 +636,9 @@ void intel_psr_disable(struct intel_dp *intel_dp,
> if (!old_crtc_state->has_psr)
> return;
>
> + if (WARN_ON(!CAN_PSR(dev_priv)))
> + return;
> +
> mutex_lock(&dev_priv->psr.lock);
> if (!dev_priv->psr.enabled) {
> mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->psr.lock);
> @@ -913,6 +919,9 @@ void intel_psr_init(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> dev_priv->psr_mmio_base = IS_HASWELL(dev_priv) ?
> HSW_EDP_PSR_BASE : BDW_EDP_PSR_BASE;
>
> + if (!dev_priv->psr.sink_support)
> + return;
> +
Why not use CAN_PSR here?
> /* Per platform default: all disabled. */
> if (i915_modparams.enable_psr == -1)
> i915_modparams.enable_psr = 0;
> --
> 2.11.0
>
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
