> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nikula, Jani <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, December 9, 2022 4:16 PM
> To: Murthy, Arun R <arun.r.murthy@xxxxxxxxx>; intel-
> gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Deak, Imre
> <imre.deak@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Murthy, Arun R <arun.r.murthy@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCHv3] drm/i915/dp: Change aux_ctl reg read to
> polling read
>
> On Fri, 09 Dec 2022, Arun R Murthy <arun.r.murthy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > The busy timeout logic checks for the AUX BUSY, then waits for the
> > timeout period and then after timeout reads the register for BUSY or
> > Success.
> > Instead replace interrupt with polling so as to read the AUX CTL
> > register often before the timeout period. Looks like there might be
> > some issue with interrupt-on-read. Hence changing the logic to polling
> read.
> >
> > v2: replace interrupt with polling read
> > v3: use usleep_rang instead of msleep, updated commit msg
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Arun R Murthy <arun.r.murthy@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_aux.c | 24
> > ++++++++++++---------
> > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_aux.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_aux.c
> > index 91c93c93e5fc..230f27d75846 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_aux.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_aux.c
> > @@ -41,21 +41,25 @@ intel_dp_aux_wait_done(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> > i915_reg_t ch_ctl = intel_dp->aux_ch_ctl_reg(intel_dp);
> > const unsigned int timeout_ms = 10;
> > u32 status;
> > - bool done;
> > + int try;
> >
> > -#define C (((status = intel_de_read_notrace(i915, ch_ctl)) &
> DP_AUX_CH_CTL_SEND_BUSY) == 0)
> > - done = wait_event_timeout(i915->display.gmbus.wait_queue, C,
> > - msecs_to_jiffies_timeout(timeout_ms));
> > + for (try = 0; try < 10; try++) {
> > + status = intel_uncore_read_notrace(&i915->uncore, ch_ctl);
> > + if ((status & DP_AUX_CH_CTL_SEND_BUSY) == 0)
> > + break;
> > + usleep_range(400, 500);
> > + }
> > + if (try == 3) {
> > + status = intel_uncore_read_notrace(&i915->uncore, ch_ctl);
> > + if ((status & DP_AUX_CH_CTL_SEND_BUSY) != 0)
> > + drm_err(&i915->drm,
> > + "%s: did not complete or timeout within
> %ums (status 0x%08x)\n",
> > + intel_dp->aux.name, timeout_ms, status);
> > + }
> >
> > /* just trace the final value */
> > trace_i915_reg_rw(false, ch_ctl, status, sizeof(status), true);
>
> Okay, so there are still a bunch of issues above. For example, try < 10 vs. try
> == 3, reverting back to intel_uncore_* functions after conflict resolution,
> having duplicated reads and conditions.
The logic tries to read in a loop for 10 times with a sleep of 500usec between each reads.
Finally after the 10th iteration for the last time the register is read again and the status is returned.
>
> Now, I should've taken a step back earlier and realized you should use the
> helper we already have for this: intel_de_wait_for_register().
I checked this earlier. The reason for not opting this is this function is its
interrupt-on-read, but we need a polling read with timeout.
Thanks and Regards,
Arun R Murthy
--------------------
>
> All of the above shrinks to just a few lines:
>
> ret = intel_de_wait_for_register(i915, ch_ctl,
> DP_AUX_CH_CTL_SEND_BUSY, 0, timeout_ms);
> if (ret)
> drm_err(...);
>
> Sorry for missing this earlier.
>
> BR,
> Jani.
>
> >
> > - if (!done)
> > - drm_err(&i915->drm,
> > - "%s: did not complete or timeout within %ums
> (status 0x%08x)\n",
> > - intel_dp->aux.name, timeout_ms, status);
> > -#undef C
> > -
> > return status;
> > }
>
> --
> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
