On 2020-03-04 at 09:43:10 +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > Op 03-03-2020 om 17:35 schreef Anshuman Gupta: > > On 2020-03-03 at 15:36:37 +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > >> Op 05-02-2020 om 06:07 schreef Anshuman Gupta: > >>> On 2020-01-28 at 21:45:45 +0530, Anshuman Gupta wrote: > >>> Hi Jani , > >>> As per my understanding intel_hdcp_atomic_check() is not sufficient to > >>> fix the broken hdcp uapi state, as the state fixup required in case > >>> of modeset. > >>> If you do not have any concern, can we continue with the patch. > >>> Thanks, > >>> Anshuman Gupta. > >> Hey, > >> Hi Maarten, > > Thanks martin for review. My apology for typo here. > > As full modeset DDI disable sequence (encoder->disable()->intel_hdcp_disable()) can cause HDCP to > > disable without user space knowledge i.e. when Content Protetion state is not UNDESIRED, in those cases > > we want to fix the HDCP Content Protection state. > You can get to crtc_state from the connector_state->crtc, should be easy to fix up this case. > >> In case of a modeset, don't we always call atomic_check() on the connector, either before or after? > > yes it calls drm_atomic_helper_check_modeset()->intel_digital_connector_atomic_check()->intel_hdcp_atomic_check(), > > but if we fix HDCP state in intel_hdcp_atomic_check(), there may be a case at later point that fastset > > check is true, which disable need_modeset and enable update_pipe due to which encoder->update_pipe()->intel_hdcp_update_pipe() > > may endup enabling HDCP again when HDCP is already enabled, which is wrong. > > Seems that if you look at the crtc_state carefully, you can prevent that. :) If i understand correctly your suggestion to use crtc_state->active state here, or it is some other crtc state parameter to refer. AFAIU crtc_state->active state can also be true for any modeset request, Please correct me if i am wrong here. Thanks, Anshuman. > > > ~Maarten > > >> Should be fine to fixup there then? > > Therefore we want to fixup the HDCP state only when full modeset is required, when it is going > > to disable DDI. > > > > Thanks , > > Anshuman Gupta. > >>>> On 2020-01-28 at 21:14:44 +0530, Anshuman Gupta wrote: > >>>>> On 2020-01-28 at 16:19:31 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > >>>>>> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020, Anshuman Gupta <anshuman.gupta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>>>> Content Protection property should be updated as per the kernel > >>>>>>> internal state. Let's say if Content protection is disabled > >>>>>>> by userspace, CP property should be set to UNDESIRED so that > >>>>>>> reauthentication will not happen until userspace request it again, > >>>>>>> but when kernel disables the HDCP due to any DDI disabling sequences > >>>>>>> like modeset/DPMS operation, kernel should set the property to > >>>>>>> DESIRED, so that when opportunity arises, kernel will start the > >>>>>>> HDCP authentication on its own. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Somewhere in the line, state machine to set content protection to > >>>>>>> DESIRED from kernel was broken and IGT coverage was missing for it. > >>>>>>> This patch fixes it. > >>>>>>> IGT patch to catch further regression on this features is being > >>>>>>> worked upon. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> CC: Ramalingam C <ramalingam.c@xxxxxxxxx> > >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Gupta <anshuman.gupta@xxxxxxxxx> > >>>>>>> --- > >>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c | 4 +++ > >>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_hdcp.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++ > >>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_hdcp.h | 2 ++ > >>>>>>> 3 files changed, 32 insertions(+) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c > >>>>>>> index da5266e76738..934cdf1f1858 100644 > >>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c > >>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c > >>>>>>> @@ -14595,6 +14595,10 @@ static int intel_atomic_check(struct drm_device *dev, > >>>>>>> goto fail; > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> if (any_ms) { > >>>>>>> + /* > >>>>>>> + * When there is modeset fix the hdcp uapi CP state. > >>>>>>> + */ > >>>>>>> + intel_hdcp_post_need_modeset_check(state); > >>>>>>> ret = intel_modeset_checks(state); > >>>>>>> if (ret) > >>>>>>> goto fail; > >>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_hdcp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_hdcp.c > >>>>>>> index 0fdbd39f6641..be083136eee2 100644 > >>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_hdcp.c > >>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_hdcp.c > >>>>>>> @@ -2074,6 +2074,32 @@ void intel_hdcp_atomic_check(struct drm_connector *connector, > >>>>>>> crtc_state->mode_changed = true; > >>>>>>> } > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> +/** > >>>>>>> + * intel_hdcp_post_need_modeset_check. > >>>>>>> + * @state: intel atomic state. > >>>>>>> + * > >>>>>>> + * This function fix the HDCP uapi state when hdcp disabling initiated from > >>>>>>> + * modeset DDI disabling sequence. It updates uapi CP state from ENABLED to > >>>>>>> + * DESIRED so that HDCP uapi state can be restored as per HDCP Auth state. > >>>>>>> + * This function should be called only in case of in case of modeset. > >>>>>>> + * FIXME: As per HDCP content protection property uapi doc, an uevent() > >>>>>>> + * need to be sent if there is transition from ENABLED->DESIRED. > >>>>>>> + */ > >>>>>>> +void intel_hdcp_post_need_modeset_check(struct intel_atomic_state *state) > >>>>>>> +{ > >>>>>>> + struct drm_connector *connector; > >>>>>>> + struct drm_connector_state *old_state; > >>>>>>> + struct drm_connector_state *new_state; > >>>>>>> + int i; > >>>>>>> + > >>>>>>> + for_each_oldnew_connector_in_state(&state->base, connector, old_state, > >>>>>>> + new_state, i) { > >>>>>>> + if (old_state->content_protection == DRM_MODE_CONTENT_PROTECTION_ENABLED && > >>>>>>> + new_state->content_protection != DRM_MODE_CONTENT_PROTECTION_UNDESIRED) > >>>>>>> + new_state->content_protection = DRM_MODE_CONTENT_PROTECTION_DESIRED; > >>>>>>> + } > >>>>>>> +} > >>>>>>> + > >>>>>> Why does this feel like duplication of what you already have in > >>>>>> intel_hdcp_atomic_check()? > >>>>> intel_hdcp_atomic_check() have checks that for disconnected connector and it doesn't look for > >>>> typo here, "intel_hdcp_atomic_check() checks that for disconnected connector and it doesn't check for new state shouldn't be UNDESIRED" > >>>>> old state, that is not sufficient to fix the hdcp CP uapi state, it need to be fix only in case of > >>>>> modeset, Later on a fastset check can disable the modeset and we would endup calling intel_hdcp_enable > >>>>> while hdcp is already enabled. That is the reason i think we would require a new API to > >>>>> fix the uapi state. > >>>>> Thanks , > >>>>> Anshuman Gupta. > >>>>>> BR, > >>>>>> Jani. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> /* Handles the CP_IRQ raised from the DP HDCP sink */ > >>>>>>> void intel_hdcp_handle_cp_irq(struct intel_connector *connector) > >>>>>>> { > >>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_hdcp.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_hdcp.h > >>>>>>> index f3c3272e712a..7bf46bc3c348 100644 > >>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_hdcp.h > >>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_hdcp.h > >>>>>>> @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ > >>>>>>> struct drm_connector; > >>>>>>> struct drm_connector_state; > >>>>>>> struct drm_i915_private; > >>>>>>> +struct intel_atomic_state; > >>>>>>> struct intel_connector; > >>>>>>> struct intel_hdcp_shim; > >>>>>>> enum port; > >>>>>>> @@ -21,6 +22,7 @@ enum transcoder; > >>>>>>> void intel_hdcp_atomic_check(struct drm_connector *connector, > >>>>>>> struct drm_connector_state *old_state, > >>>>>>> struct drm_connector_state *new_state); > >>>>>>> +void intel_hdcp_post_need_modeset_check(struct intel_atomic_state *state); > >>>>>>> int intel_hdcp_init(struct intel_connector *connector, > >>>>>>> const struct intel_hdcp_shim *hdcp_shim); > >>>>>>> int intel_hdcp_enable(struct intel_connector *connector, > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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