On Fri, 2021-03-19 at 19:29 +0200, Imre Deak wrote: > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 01:25:08PM -0400, Lyude Paul wrote: > > On Fri, 2021-03-19 at 01:17 +0200, Imre Deak wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 12:04:54AM +0200, Almahallawy, Khaled wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2021-03-18 at 20:06 +0200, Imre Deak wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 07:49:13PM +0200, Imre Deak wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 07:33:20PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 08:48:59PM +0200, Imre Deak wrote: > > > > > > > > The spec requires to use at least 3.2ms for the AUX timeout > > > > > > > > period if > > > > > > > > there are LT-tunable PHY Repeaters on the link (2.11.2). An > > > > > > > > upcoming > > > > > > > > spec update makes this more specific, by requiring a 3.2ms > > > > > > > > minimum > > > > > > > > timeout period for the LTTPR detection reading the 0xF0000- > > > > > > > > 0xF0007 > > > > > > > > range (3.6.5.1). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm pondering if we could reduce the timeout after having > > > > > > > determined > > > > > > > wherther LTTPRs are present or not? But maybe that wouldn't > > > > > > > really speed > > > > > > > up anything since we can't reduce the timeout until after > > > > > > > detecting > > > > > > > *something*. And once there is something there we shouldn't > > > > > > > really get > > > > > > > any more timeouts I guess. So probably a totally stupid idea. > > > > > > > > > > > > Right, if something is connected it would take anyway as much time > > > > > > as it > > > > > > takes for the sink to reply whether or not we decreased the > > > > > > timeout. > > > > > > > > > > > > However if nothing is connected, we have the excessive timeout > > > > > > Khaled > > > > > > already noticed (160 * 4ms = 6.4 sec on ICL+). I think to improve > > > > > > that > > > > > > we could scale the total number of retries by making it > > > > > > total_timeout/platform_specific_timeout (letting total_timeout=2sec > > > > > > for > > > > > > instance) or just changing the drm retry logic to be time based > > > > > > instead > > > > > > of the number of retries we use atm. > > > > > > > > > > Doh, reducing simply the HW timeouts would be enough to fix this. > > > > > > > > What about Lyude's suggestion ( > > > > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/420369/#comment_756572) > > > > to drop the retries in intel_dp_aux_xfer() > > > > /* Must try at least 3 times according to DP spec */ > > > > for (try = 0; try < 5; try++) { > > > > > > > > And use only the retries in drm_dpcd_access? > > > > > > I think it would work if we can make the retries configurable and set it > > > to > > > retries = total_timeout / platform_specific_timeout_per_retry > > > > > > where total_timeout would be something reasonable like 1 sec. > > > > I actually think I'm more open to the idea of configurable retries after > > learning that apparently this is a thing that the i2c subsystem does - so > > there's more precedence for it in the rest of the kernel than I originally > > thought. > > > > I'm still curious if we need these extra retries in here though - there seems > > to > > be one set of retries that is actually platform specific, and then just a > > random > > set of 5 retries that don't seem to have anything to do with platform specific > > behavior - so I think it'd still be worth giving a shot at getting rid of that > > The platform specific part of the timeout is the one desctibed in the > maximum timeout values comments. You mean the /* Must try at least 3 times according to DP spec */ for (try = 0; try < 5; try++) { bit? I thought that wasn't related to platform specific retries at all, since the code in that loop seems to only reference parts of the DP spec, and that the while ((aux_clock_divider = intel_dp->get_aux_clock_divider(intel_dp, clock++))) { Loop was the portion that was platform specific, since it prompts the driver to retry the transaction with different aux clock divider rates depending on the platform in use. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong though. Also - with the timeouts we're seeing, does the LTTPR return NAKs at all? That's still another thing I had suggested alternate workarounds for so that we could terminate transactions immediately on NAKs, so I wonder if that could save time here as well. > > > > > Thanks > > > > Khaled > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyways, this seems about the only thing we can do given the > > > > > > > limited > > > > > > > hw capabilities. > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Accordingly disable LTTPR detection until GLK, where the > > > > > > > > maximum timeout > > > > > > > > we can set is only 1.6ms. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Link training in the non-transparent mode is known to fail at > > > > > > > > least on > > > > > > > > some SKL systems with a WD19 dock on the link, which exposes an > > > > > > > > LTTPR > > > > > > > > (see the References below). While this could have different > > > > > > > > reasons > > > > > > > > besides the too short AUX timeout used, not detecting LTTPRs > > > > > > > > (and so not > > > > > > > > using the non-transparent LT mode) fixes link training on these > > > > > > > > systems. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While at it add a code comment about the platform specific > > > > > > > > maximum > > > > > > > > timeout values. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > v2: Add a comment about the g4x maximum timeout as well. > > > > > > > > (Ville) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reported-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Reported-and-tested-by: Santiago Zarate < > > > > > > > > santiago.zarate@xxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Reported-and-tested-by: Bodo Graumann <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > References: > > > > > > > > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/3166 > > > > > > > > Fixes: b30edfd8d0b4 ("drm/i915: Switch to LTTPR non-transparent > > > > > > > > mode link training") > > > > > > > > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # v5.11 > > > > > > > > Cc: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_aux.c | 7 +++++++ > > > > > > > > .../gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_link_training.c | 15 > > > > > > > > ++++++++++++--- > > > > > > > > 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_aux.c > > > > > > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_aux.c > > > > > > > > index eaebf123310a..10fe17b7280d 100644 > > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_aux.c > > > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_aux.c > > > > > > > > @@ -133,6 +133,7 @@ static u32 g4x_get_aux_send_ctl(struct > > > > > > > > intel_dp *intel_dp, > > > > > > > > else > > > > > > > > precharge = 5; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +/* Max timeout value on G4x-BDW: 1.6ms */ > > > > > > > > if (IS_BROADWELL(dev_priv)) > > > > > > > > timeout = DP_AUX_CH_CTL_TIME_OUT_600us; > > > > > > > > else > > > > > > > > @@ -159,6 +160,12 @@ static u32 skl_get_aux_send_ctl(struct > > > > > > > > intel_dp *intel_dp, > > > > > > > > enum phy phy = intel_port_to_phy(i915, dig_port- > > > > > > > > > base.port); > > > > > > > > u32 ret; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +/* > > > > > > > > + * Max timeout values: > > > > > > > > + * SKL-GLK: 1.6ms > > > > > > > > + * CNL: 3.2ms > > > > > > > > + * ICL+: 4ms > > > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > > > ret = DP_AUX_CH_CTL_SEND_BUSY | > > > > > > > > DP_AUX_CH_CTL_DONE | > > > > > > > > DP_AUX_CH_CTL_INTERRUPT | > > > > > > > > diff --git > > > > > > > > a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_link_training.c > > > > > > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_link_training.c > > > > > > > > index 19ba7c7cbaab..c0e25c75c105 100644 > > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_link_training.c > > > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_link_training.c > > > > > > > > @@ -82,6 +82,18 @@ static void > > > > > > > > intel_dp_read_lttpr_phy_caps(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > static bool intel_dp_read_lttpr_common_caps(struct intel_dp > > > > > > > > *intel_dp) > > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > > +struct drm_i915_private *i915 = dp_to_i915(intel_dp); > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > +if (intel_dp_is_edp(intel_dp)) > > > > > > > > +return false; > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > +/* > > > > > > > > + * Detecting LTTPRs must be avoided on platforms with > > > > > > > > an AUX timeout > > > > > > > > + * period < 3.2ms. (see DP Standard v2.0, 2.11.2, > > > > > > > > 3.6.6.1). > > > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > > > +if (INTEL_GEN(i915) < 10) > > > > > > > > +return false; > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > if (drm_dp_read_lttpr_common_caps(&intel_dp->aux, > > > > > > > > intel_dp- > > > > > > > > > lttpr_common_caps) < 0) { > > > > > > > > memset(intel_dp->lttpr_common_caps, 0, > > > > > > > > @@ -127,9 +139,6 @@ int intel_dp_lttpr_init(struct intel_dp > > > > > > > > *intel_dp) > > > > > > > > bool ret; > > > > > > > > int i; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -if (intel_dp_is_edp(intel_dp)) > > > > > > > > -return 0; > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > ret = intel_dp_read_lttpr_common_caps(intel_dp); > > > > > > > > if (!ret) > > > > > > > > return 0; > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > 2.25.1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Ville Syrjälä > > > > > > > Intel > > > > > > > -- > > Sincerely, > > Lyude Paul (she/her) > > Software Engineer at Red Hat > > > > Note: I deal with a lot of emails and have a lot of bugs on my plate. If > > you've > > asked me a question, are waiting for a review/merge on a patch, etc. and I > > haven't responded in a while, please feel free to send me another email to > > check > > on my status. I don't bite! > > > -- Sincerely, Lyude Paul (she/her) Software Engineer at Red Hat Note: I deal with a lot of emails and have a lot of bugs on my plate. If you've asked me a question, are waiting for a review/merge on a patch, etc. and I haven't responded in a while, please feel free to send me another email to check on my status. I don't bite! _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
