tor 2018-08-16 klockan 14:43 -0700 skrev Rodrigo Vivi: > On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 11:35:26PM +0200, fredrikschon@xxxxxxxxx > wrote: > > tor 2018-08-16 klockan 11:23 -0700 skrev Rodrigo Vivi: > > > On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 10:36:43AM +0200, Fredrik Schön wrote: > > > > Shashank, > > > > > > > > Den tors 16 aug. 2018 kl 10:15 skrev Sharma, Shashank > > > > <shashank.sharma@xxxxxxxxx>: > > > > > > > > > > Hey Chris, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/16/2018 1:13 PM, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > > > > Quoting Sharma, Shashank (2018-08-16 08:33:36) > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shashank > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/16/2018 12:47 PM, Jani Nikula wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, 15 Aug 2018, Rodrigo Vivi < > > > > > > > > rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 03:39:40PM -0700, Rodrigo > > > > > > > > > Vivi > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 07:51:33PM +0200, Fredrik > > > > > > > > > > Schön > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > First of all we need to fix the commit subject: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > drm/i915: Increase LSPCON timeout > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (this can be done when merging, no need to resend) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100 ms is not enough time for the LSPCON adapter > > > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > Intel NUC devices to > > > > > > > > > > > settle. This causes dropped display modes at > > > > > > > > > > > driver > > > > > > > > > > > initialisation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Increase timeout to 1000 ms. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fixes: > > > > > > > > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1570392 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Missusage of "Fixes:" tag, please read > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://01.org/linuxgraphics/gfx-docs/maintainer-tools/drm-intel.html#fixes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But also no need for resending... could be fixed > > > > > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > > > merging > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The right one would be: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bugzilla: > > > > > > > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1570392 > > > > > > > > > > Fixes: 357c0ae9198a ("drm/i915/lspcon: Wait for > > > > > > > > > > expected LSPCON mode to settle") > > > > > > > > > > Cc: Shashank Sharma <shashank.sharma@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > Cc: Imre Deak <imre.deak@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # v4.11+ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since initial 100 seemed to be empirical and this > > > > > > > > > > increase seems to > > > > > > > > > > help other cases I'm in favor of this move so > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However I will wait a bit before merging it > > > > > > > > > > so Imre, Shashank, and/or Jani can take a look > > > > > > > > > > here... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > now, really cc'ing them... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shashank? Does this slow down non-LSPCON paths? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This will slow down the lspcon probing and resume part, > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > both of them > > > > > > > happen only when LSPCON device is found. So to answer > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > question, > > > > > > > this will not slow down the non-lspcon path, but will > > > > > > > slow > > > > > > > down the > > > > > > > LSPCON connector resume and probe time. but I would > > > > > > > recommend, instead > > > > > > > of increasing it to 1000 ms in a single shot, we might > > > > > > > want > > > > > > > to gradually > > > > > > > pick this up, on a wake-and-check way. > > > > > > > > > > > > wait_for() checks every [10us, 1ms] until the condition is > > > > > > met, > > > > > > or it > > > > > > times out. So, so long as we don't enter this path for > > > > > > !LPSCON > > > > > > where we > > > > > > know that it will timeout, the wait_for() will only take as > > > > > > long as is > > > > > > required for the connector to settle. > > > > > > > > > > We wont hit !LSPCON timeout case here, as we have already > > > > > read > > > > > the > > > > > dongle signature successfully by now. But I was thinking > > > > > that, > > > > > if the > > > > > spec recommends max wait time as 100ms (which is of course > > > > > doesn't seem > > > > > enough), if we can't detect i2c-over-aux after first 500ms, I > > > > > guess we > > > > > wont be able to do that in next 500ms too. So is it really ok > > > > > to > > > > > wait > > > > > this long in the resume sequence ? > > > > > > > > > > I guess Fredrik can provide some inputs here on if there are > > > > > some > > > > > experiments behind this number of 1000ms, or this is just a > > > > > safe > > > > > bet ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My first patch attempt - which is attached to the Redhat and > > > > FDO > > > > Bugzilla > > > > bugs - added a retry loop around the original 100 ms timeout. > > > > The > > > > retry loop > > > > did trigger, but never more than once in a row in my testing. > > > > > > > > So possibly 200 ms would be a sufficient timeout, but as the > > > > wait_for() loop > > > > terminates early on success I suggested a conservative value of > > > > 1000 ms. > > > > > > Since Shashank mentioned 100us came from some spec, maybe the > > > double > > > is already > > > a conservative value. > > > > > > Since there is the concerns of delaying something when LSPCON > > > fails > > > and we are possibly looping on connectors somewhere/somehow I > > > believe > > > we need > > > to have a balanced approach here. > > > > > > could you please try the 200 ms approach on your case there for a > > > while and > > > see how it goes? > > > > > > > I ran a few stress tests using Nicholas test case from [1]. I can > > quickly reproduce the failure with timeouts 100 ms, 110 ms, 130 ms, > > 150 > > ms and 170 ms. I am unable to reproduce any failures with timeouts > > 190 > > ms (n=18) and 200 ms (n=20+16). > > > > So while 200 ms appears to work on my hardware with reasonable > > confidence, I wouldn't call 200 conservative. But then again, I do > > not > > know the specifications. I'm just being empirical. > > I don't know this specification either and if that exists the > empirical > shows that it is wrong or we have another bug somewhere else. > > So... let's call 400 safe enough for now then?! > Sound reasonable. Do you want me to respin the patch? > > > > [1] https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107503#c15 > > > > > > > > > > > > Can we do other connectors at the same time, or does > > > > > > probing > > > > > > LSPCON > > > > > > block the system? > > > > > > > > > > We can do other connectors at the same time in DRM layer at- > > > > > least, > > > > > LSPCON blocks only this connector. I was curious if are we > > > > > doing > > > > > this > > > > > during the resume scenario or is this in the sequential > > > > > get_connector() > > > > > type of call ? > > > > > - Shashank > > > > > > -Chris > > > > > > > > /F > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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
