On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 04:46:48PM -0700, Souza, Jose wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-06-14 at 14:09 -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 01:34:30PM -0700, José Roberto de Souza
> > wrote:
> > > eDP spec states that sink device will do a short pulse in HPD
> > > line when there is a PSR/PSR2 error that needs to be handled by
> > > source, this is handling the first and most simples error:
> > > DP_PSR_SINK_INTERNAL_ERROR.
> > >
> > > Here taking the safest approach and disabling PSR(at least until
> > > the next modeset), to avoid multiple rendering issues due to
> > > bad pannels.
> > >
> > > v4:
> > > Using CAN_PSR instead of HAS_PSR in intel_psr_short_pulse
> > >
> > > v3:
> > > disabling PSR instead of exiting on error
> > >
> > > Cc: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 2 ++
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h | 1 +
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c | 60 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > ------
> > > 3 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > > index 67875b00c8df..19585523e4ce 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > > @@ -4474,6 +4474,8 @@ intel_dp_short_pulse(struct intel_dp
> > > *intel_dp)
> > > if (intel_dp_needs_link_retrain(intel_dp))
> > > return false;
> > >
> > > + intel_psr_short_pulse(intel_dp);
> > > +
> > > if (intel_dp->compliance.test_type ==
> > > DP_TEST_LINK_TRAINING) {
> > > DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Link Training Compliance Test
> > > requested\n");
> > > /* Send a Hotplug Uevent to userspace to start
> > > modeset */
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> > > index 8840108749a5..bb6ffdb282fd 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> > > @@ -1926,6 +1926,7 @@ void intel_psr_compute_config(struct intel_dp
> > > *intel_dp,
> > > struct intel_crtc_state
> > > *crtc_state);
> > > void intel_psr_irq_control(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, bool
> > > debug);
> > > void intel_psr_irq_handler(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, u32
> > > psr_iir);
> > > +void intel_psr_short_pulse(struct intel_dp *intel_dp);
> > >
> > > /* intel_runtime_pm.c */
> > > int intel_power_domains_init(struct drm_i915_private *);
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > > index bc6d54f677dc..af5fcfd98a53 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > > @@ -720,6 +720,23 @@ static void hsw_psr_disable(struct intel_dp
> > > *intel_dp)
> > > psr_aux_io_power_put(intel_dp);
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static void psr_disable(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> >
> > what about intel_psr_disable_unlocked()?
>
> unlocked? shouldn't be locked?
dam... either way seems ambiguous...
maybe just __intel_psr_disable() ?
> I'm okay in adding the suffix but it will be different than the other
> functions in this file.
without "intel_" you are with prefix different than the other functions
in this file anyways...
>
> >
> > > +{
> > > + struct intel_digital_port *intel_dig_port =
> > > dp_to_dig_port(intel_dp);
> > > + struct drm_device *dev = intel_dig_port->base.base.dev;
> > > + struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dev);
> >
> > assert it is locked here...
>
> Done
>
> >
> > > +
> > > + if (!dev_priv->psr.enabled)
> > > + return;
> > > +
> > > + dev_priv->psr.disable_source(intel_dp);
> > > +
> > > + /* Disable PSR on Sink */
> > > + drm_dp_dpcd_writeb(&intel_dp->aux, DP_PSR_EN_CFG, 0);
> > > +
> > > + dev_priv->psr.enabled = NULL;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > /**
> > > * intel_psr_disable - Disable PSR
> > > * @intel_dp: Intel DP
> > > @@ -741,17 +758,7 @@ void intel_psr_disable(struct intel_dp
> > > *intel_dp,
> > > return;
> > >
> > > mutex_lock(&dev_priv->psr.lock);
> > > - if (!dev_priv->psr.enabled) {
> > > - mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->psr.lock);
> > > - return;
> > > - }
> > > -
> > > - dev_priv->psr.disable_source(intel_dp);
> > > -
> > > - /* Disable PSR on Sink */
> > > - drm_dp_dpcd_writeb(&intel_dp->aux, DP_PSR_EN_CFG, 0);
> > > -
> > > - dev_priv->psr.enabled = NULL;
> > > + psr_disable(intel_dp);
> > > mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->psr.lock);
> > > }
> > >
> > > @@ -992,3 +999,34 @@ void intel_psr_init(struct drm_i915_private
> > > *dev_priv)
> > > dev_priv->psr.setup_vsc = hsw_psr_setup_vsc;
> > >
> > > }
> > > +
> > > +void intel_psr_short_pulse(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> > > +{
> > > + struct intel_digital_port *intel_dig_port =
> > > dp_to_dig_port(intel_dp);
> > > + struct drm_device *dev = intel_dig_port->base.base.dev;
> > > + struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dev);
> > > + struct i915_psr *psr = &dev_priv->psr;
> > > + uint8_t val;
> > > +
> > > + if (!CAN_PSR(dev_priv) || !intel_dp_is_edp(intel_dp))
> > > + return;
> > > +
> > > + mutex_lock(&psr->lock);
> > > +
> > > + if (psr->enabled != intel_dp)
> > > + goto exit;
> > > +
> > > + if (drm_dp_dpcd_readb(&intel_dp->aux, DP_PSR_STATUS, &val)
> > > != 1) {
> > > + DRM_ERROR("PSR_STATUS dpcd read failed\n");
> > > + goto exit;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if ((val & DP_PSR_SINK_STATE_MASK) ==
> > > DP_PSR_SINK_INTERNAL_ERROR) {
> > > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("PSR sink internal error, disabling
> > > PSR\n");
> > > + psr_disable(intel_dp);
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + /* TODO: handle other PSR/PSR2 errors */
> > > +exit:
> > > + mutex_unlock(&psr->lock);
> > > +}
> > > --
> > > 2.17.1
> > >
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
