On Tue, 2019-03-12 at 13:53 -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 01:42:17PM -0700, José Roberto de Souza
> wrote:
> > For some reason if the PSR1 EDP_PSR_TP1_TP3_SEL register is kept
> > set
> > while PSR2 is enabled, it causes some selective updates to fail
> > after
> > got back from DC6 for the first time.
That's suspicious, why does a PSR1 control register have any effect on
PSR2. Was PSR1 enabled before PSR2?
> > So lets clear this register before enabled PSR2, as it could be set
> > by a previous i915 module, firmware/BIOS or by a previous mode that
> > is not compatible with PSR2.
>
> Does it happen when you don't have DMC loaded?
>
> Because It looks like a DMC bug for me...
>
> If by removing DMC we don't see the issue, could we please file
> this bug to DMC while adding a FIXME with DMC bugged version on it?
>
> Aa: Pavana
>
> If it doesn't happen with DMC loaded than maybe a HSD would for hw
> team would be good anyway.
>
> Cc: Art.
>
> Thanks,
> Rodrigo.
>
> >
> > 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_psr.c | 12 ++++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > index 7bab6a009e0d..ae62f8124558 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > @@ -494,12 +494,20 @@ static void hsw_activate_psr2(struct intel_dp
> > *intel_dp)
> > {
> > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dp_to_i915(intel_dp);
> > u32 val;
> > + int idle_frames;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Keeping this PSR1 register set while PSR2 is enabled causes
> > some
> > + * PSR2 selective updates to fail, corrupting screen.
> > + */
> > + val = I915_READ(EDP_PSR_CTL);
> > + if (val & EDP_PSR_TP1_TP3_SEL)
> > + I915_WRITE(EDP_PSR_CTL, val & ~EDP_PSR_TP1_TP3_SEL);
Since PSR1 should be disabled at this point, a rmw is not necessary.
Does this work?
I915_WRITE(EDP_PSR_CTL, 0);
We could do the same thing in psr_exit() as well.
> >
> > /* Let's use 6 as the minimum to cover all known cases
> > including the
> > * off-by-one issue that HW has in some cases.
> > */
> > - int idle_frames = max(6, dev_priv->vbt.psr.idle_frames);
> > -
> > + idle_frames = max(6, dev_priv->vbt.psr.idle_frames);
> > idle_frames = max(idle_frames, dev_priv->psr.sink_sync_latency
> > + 1);
> > val = idle_frames << EDP_PSR2_IDLE_FRAME_SHIFT;
> >
> > --
> > 2.21.0
> >
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
