> -----Original Message----- > From: Shankar, Uma > Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 10:23 PM > To: Nikula, Jani <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx>; Ville Syrjälä > <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: [PATCH] drm/i915/edp: don't write to DP_LINK_BW_SET > when using rate select > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Nikula, Jani <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 10:18 PM > > To: Shankar, Uma <uma.shankar@xxxxxxxxx>; Ville Syrjälä > > <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: RE: [PATCH] drm/i915/edp: don't write to > > DP_LINK_BW_SET when using rate select > > > > On Mon, 04 Dec 2023, "Shankar, Uma" <uma.shankar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Intel-gfx <intel-gfx-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf > > >> Of Jani Nikula > > >> Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 3:28 PM > > >> To: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >> Cc: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/edp: don't write to > > >> DP_LINK_BW_SET when using rate select > > >> > > >> On Fri, 01 Dec 2023, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> > On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 03:41:41PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > > >> >> The eDP 1.5 spec adds a clarification for eDP 1.4x: > > >> >> > > >> >> > For eDP v1.4x, if the Source device chooses the Main-Link rate > > >> >> > by way of DPCD 00100h, the Sink device shall ignore DPCD 00115h[2:0]. > > >> >> > > >> >> We write 0 to DP_LINK_BW_SET (DPCD 100h) even when using > > >> >> DP_LINK_RATE_SET (DPCD 114h). Stop doing that, as it can cause > > >> >> the panel to ignore the rate set method. > > >> > > > >> > What a terrible way to specify this :( This means the device must > > >> > hav some internal state to keep track of whethe BW_SET was ever written. > > >> > > >> Indeed. > > >> > > >> Additionally, eDP 1.5 specifies LINK_CONFIGURATION_STATUS (DPCD > > >> 0020Ch) which exposes the internal state as link rate set status, > > >> and whether that status is valid or not. > > >> > > >> Overall the spec looks like that's just for status, but the > > >> register is annotated Write/Read so who knows. > > >> > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> Closes: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/9081 > > >> >> Tested-by: Animesh Manna <animesh.manna@xxxxxxxxx> > > >> >> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> > > >> >> --- > > >> >> .../drm/i915/display/intel_dp_link_training.c | 23 > > >> >> +++++++++++-------- > > >> >> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > >> >> > > >> >> 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 dbc1b66c8ee4..6336a39030a4 100644 > > >> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_link_training.c > > >> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_link_training.c > > >> >> @@ -650,19 +650,22 @@ intel_dp_update_link_bw_set(struct > > >> >> intel_dp > > >> *intel_dp, > > >> >> const struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state, > > >> >> u8 link_bw, u8 rate_select) { > > >> >> - u8 link_config[2]; > > >> >> + u8 lane_count = crtc_state->lane_count; > > >> >> > > >> >> - /* Write the link configuration data */ > > >> >> - link_config[0] = link_bw; > > >> >> - link_config[1] = crtc_state->lane_count; > > >> >> if (crtc_state->enhanced_framing) > > >> >> - link_config[1] |= DP_LANE_COUNT_ENHANCED_FRAME_EN; > > >> >> - drm_dp_dpcd_write(&intel_dp->aux, DP_LINK_BW_SET, > > >> >> link_config, 2); > > >> >> + lane_count |= DP_LANE_COUNT_ENHANCED_FRAME_EN; > > >> >> + > > >> >> + if (link_bw) { > > >> >> + /* eDP 1.3 and earlier link bw set method. */ > > >> >> + u8 link_config[] = { link_bw, lane_count }; > > >> >> > > >> >> - /* eDP 1.4 rate select method. */ > > >> >> - if (!link_bw) > > >> >> - drm_dp_dpcd_write(&intel_dp->aux, DP_LINK_RATE_SET, > > >> >> - &rate_select, 1); > > >> >> + drm_dp_dpcd_write(&intel_dp->aux, DP_LINK_BW_SET, > > >> link_config, > > >> >> + ARRAY_SIZE(link_config)); } else { > > >> >> + /* eDP 1.4 rate select method. */ > > >> >> + drm_dp_dpcd_writeb(&intel_dp->aux, DP_LANE_COUNT_SET, > > >> lane_count); > > >> >> + drm_dp_dpcd_writeb(&intel_dp->aux, DP_LINK_RATE_SET, > > >> rate_select); > > >> > > > >> > Doesn't look there's anything in the spec that specifies when the > > >> > device is supposed to reset its internal state to stop ignoring > > >> DP_LINK_RATE_SET. > > >> > Do we know when this panel does it? When VDD is removed? > > >> > > >> No idea. Animesh? > > >> > > >> I think it's just crazy writing 0 to explicitly disable > > >> DP_LINK_BW_SET renders DP_LINK_RATE_SET unusable. Pretty sure we've > > >> seen panels where this works > > as > > >> you'd expect. > > >> > > >> And the above depends on pre-os using the same logic as us for > > >> choosing DP_LINK_RATE_SET. GOP seems to do that. But if it or some > > >> other pre-os used DP_LINK_BW_SET, we'd fail. With some other > > >> panels, writing the 0 might > > recover > > >> from that. > > > > > > The spec does leave it a bit open on this one: > > > > > > 115h: LINK_RATE_SET and TX_GTC_CAPABILITY • DPCD 00001h = 00h/DPCD > > > 02201h = 00h – Source device shall use this field to > > choose > > > the link rate, and the Sink device shall ignore DPCD 00100h • DPCD > > > 00001h/DPCD 02201h = Valid link rate – Source device may optionally > > choose > > > a link rate associated with HBR3, HBR2,HBR, –or– RBR by writing to > > > DPCD > > 00100h > > > > > > So the 2nd point here does mentions that sinks can optionally use > > > value of > > 00100h > > > if 2201h is not 00. So programming a value to this DPCD is not right > > > unless we > > program > > > the right value (not 0). > > > > > > I feel safe way would be be to go with LINK_BW_SET for DP1.3 and for > > > DP1.4+ > > always use > > > LINK_RATE_SET and have it mutually exclusive. > > > > > > Some TCONs would have ignored and we got lucky but we can't leave it > > ambiguous, we will be compliant > > > to spec if we don't write 0x100. So let's go with this change. > > > > Moreover, there are only four documented valid values for this > > register, 0x06, 0xa, 0x14, and 0x1e, all other values are reserved. In > > that sense it's also wrong to write 0x00. > > Yeah, writing 0 is done with an intention to disable it but that’s not the way to > have this option disabled. Infact there is no reason to write to it for DP1.4+ if sink > is compliant. The change looks ok and aligns with spec, its Reviewed-by: Uma Shankar <uma.shankar@xxxxxxxxx> Regards, Uma Shankar > > > BR, > > Jani. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > Uma Shankar > > > > > >> No r-b, so do you have any better ideas? > > >> > > >> > > >> BR, > > >> Jani. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > >> >> + } > > >> >> } > > >> >> > > >> >> /* > > >> >> -- > > >> >> 2.39.2 > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Jani Nikula, Intel > > > > -- > > Jani Nikula, Intel
