On Fri, 2018-03-23 at 00:06 +0000, Souza, Jose wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-03-22 at 16:31 -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 02:48:46PM -0700, José Roberto de Souza
> > wrote:
> >
> > please add some justification on why this is useful....
>
The plan is to remove sink crc and use these bits :)
> Okay something like this should be fine?
>
> IGT tests could be improved with sink status, knowing for sure that
> hardware have activate PSR before get the CRC.
> This is also userful to check if hardware is really doing PSR2
> selective update with the y-coordinate.
>
>
> >
> > > Signed-off-by: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 54
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 54 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > > index 16f9977995df..0a0642c61cd0 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > > @@ -2603,6 +2603,44 @@ static const char *psr2_live_status(u32 val)
> > > return "unknown";
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static const char *psr_sink_self_refresh_status(u8 val)
> > > +{
> > > + static const char * const sink_status[] = {
> > > + "inactive",
> > > + "transitioning to active",
> > > + "active",
> > > + "active receiving selective update",
> > > + "transitioning to inactive",
> > > + "reserved",
> > > + "reserved",
> > > + "sink internal error"
> > > + };
> > > +
> > > + val &= DP_PSR_SINK_STATE_MASK;
> > > + if (val < ARRAY_SIZE(sink_status))
> > > + return sink_status[val];
> > > +
> > > + return "unknown";
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static void psr_sink_last_received_psr_sdp_sprintf(struct seq_file
> > > *m, u32 val)
> > > +{
> > > + if (val & DP_PSR_STATE_BIT)
> > > + seq_puts(m, "\tPSR active\n");
> >
> > I'm a bit confused here why we are printing status here again if we
> > are adding the
> > sink_status char * array with some status definition up there.
> >
> > Any simplification possible?
These values are what the sink received in the SDP, the one from
DP_PSR_STATUS is the current status of the sink.
>
> Huum yeah, DP_PSR_STATE_BIT and DP_SU_VALID changes will cause the
> status of the sink to change, so I this 2 can be removed.
This should be split as two patches. And more importantly I can't think
of a use case for printing SDP status. The update might be too fast for
making any sense of it. Printing DP_PSR_STATUS should be sufficient for
writing tests.
>
> >
> > > + if (val & DP_UPDATE_RFB_BIT)
> > > + seq_puts(m, "\tUpdate RFB\n");
> > > + if (val & DP_CRC_VALID_BIT)
> > > + seq_puts(m, "\tCRC valid\n");
> > > + if (val & DP_SU_VALID)
> > > + seq_puts(m, "\tSU valid\n");
> > > + if (val & DP_FIRST_SCAN_LINE_SU_REGION)
> > > + seq_puts(m, "\tFirst scan line of the SU
> > > region\n");
> > > + if (val & DP_LAST_SCAN_LINE_SU_REGION)
> > > + seq_puts(m, "\tLast scan line of the SU
> > > region\n");
> > > + if (val & DP_Y_COORDINATE_VALID)
> > > + seq_puts(m, "\tY-Coordinate valid\n");
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > static int i915_edp_psr_status(struct seq_file *m, void *data)
> > > {
> > > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = node_to_i915(m-
> > > >private);
> > > @@ -2684,6 +2722,22 @@ static int i915_edp_psr_status(struct
> > > seq_file *m, void *data)
> > > seq_printf(m, "EDP_PSR2_STATUS: %x [%s]\n",
> > > psr2, psr2_live_status(psr2));
> > > }
> > > +
> > > + if (dev_priv->psr.enabled) {
> > > + struct drm_dp_aux *aux = &dev_priv->psr.enabled-
> > > >aux;
> > > + u8 val;
> > > +
> > > + if (drm_dp_dpcd_readb(aux, DP_PSR_STATUS, &val) ==
> > > 1)
> > > + seq_printf(m, "Sink self refresh status:
> > > 0x%x [%s]\n",
> > > + val,
> > > psr_sink_self_refresh_status(val));
> > > +
> > > + if (drm_dp_dpcd_readb(aux,
> > > DP_LAST_RECEIVED_PSR_SDP, &val)
> > > + == 1) {
> > > + seq_printf(m, "Sink last received PSR SDP:
> > > 0x%x\n",
> > > + val);
> > > + psr_sink_last_received_psr_sdp_sprintf(m,
> > > val);
> > > + }
> > > + }
> > > mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->psr.lock);
> > >
> > > intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv);
> > > --
> > > 2.16.2
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Intel-gfx mailing list
> > > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
