On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 02:15:44PM +0000, Souza, Jose wrote: > + Rodrigo > > On Thu, 2022-02-24 at 15:11 +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 03:06:30PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 01:01:24PM +0000, Souza, Jose wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2022-02-24 at 12:12 +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 11:41:03AM -0800, José Roberto de Souza wrote: > > > > > > Some users are suffering with PSR2 issues that are under debug or > > > > > > issues that were root caused to panel firmware, to make life of those > > > > > > users easier here adding a option to disable PSR1 with kernel > > > > > > parameter. > > > > > > > > > > > > Using the same enable_psr that is current used to turn PSR1 and PSR2 > > > > > > off or on and adding a new value to only disable PSR2. > > > > > > The previous valid values did not had their behavior changed. > > > > > > > > > > > > Link: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/4951 > > > > > > Cc: Jouni Högander <jouni.hogander@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_psr.c | 4 ++++ > > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.c | 2 +- > > > > > > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_psr.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_psr.c > > > > > > index 2e0b092f4b6be..fc6b684bb7bec 100644 > > > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_psr.c > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_psr.c > > > > > > @@ -100,11 +100,15 @@ static bool psr_global_enabled(struct intel_dp *intel_dp) > > > > > > > > > > > > static bool psr2_global_enabled(struct intel_dp *intel_dp) > > > > > > { > > > > > > + struct drm_i915_private *i915 = dp_to_i915(intel_dp); > > > > > > + > > > > > > switch (intel_dp->psr.debug & I915_PSR_DEBUG_MODE_MASK) { > > > > > > case I915_PSR_DEBUG_DISABLE: > > > > > > case I915_PSR_DEBUG_FORCE_PSR1: > > > > > > return false; > > > > > > default: > > > > > > + if (i915->params.enable_psr == 2) > > > > > > + return false; > > > > > > return true; > > > > > > } > > > > > > } > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.c > > > > > > index eea355c2fc28a..a9b97e6eb3df0 100644 > > > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.c > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.c > > > > > > @@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ i915_param_named_unsafe(enable_hangcheck, bool, 0400, > > > > > > > > > > > > i915_param_named_unsafe(enable_psr, int, 0400, > > > > > > "Enable PSR " > > > > > > - "(0=disabled, 1=enabled) " > > > > > > + "(0=disabled, 1=enable up to PSR2 if supported, 2=enable up to PSR1) " > > > > > > > > > > That seems very unintuitive. I would just make it 1==PSR1 and 2==PSR2. > > > > > > > > This will break current behavior. > > > > > > It's a modparam. We routinely break those since they are not meant > > > to used by normal users as any kind of permanent "make my machine > > > work" knob. > > > > But I guess if we want to make it a bit less painful your idea of a new > > modparam might work. + deprecate the old param and remove after one or > > two kernel releases. > > Was thinking about a new one to limit the version of PSR: > > enable_psr_version > default = 0(per-chip default), 1 = up to PSR1, 2 = PSR2 I would use the standard -1==default, 0==disable convention here. Then we can drop the old param after a short transition period. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel
