On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 08:17:36AM +0000, Hogander, Jouni wrote: > On Tue, 2024-01-23 at 10:07 +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 07:57:00AM +0000, Hogander, Jouni wrote: > > > On Tue, 2024-01-23 at 09:41 +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 09:11:03AM +0200, Jouni Högander wrote: > > > > > We want to request full modeset in initial fast check to force > > > > > PSR > > > > > state > > > > > computation. Otherwise PSR is not enabled on initial commit but > > > > > on > > > > > first > > > > > commit with modeset or fastset. With this change Initial commit > > > > > will still > > > > > end up using fastset (unless something else requires full > > > > > modeset) > > > > > as PSR > > > > > parameters are not anymore part of intel_pipe_config_compare. > > > > > > > > I think I'd prefer to go the oppostie direction and try to get > > > > all > > > > the full modeset stuff out from the initial commit. The only > > > > reason > > > > the initial commit was introduced was to compute the plane states > > > > due to lack of readout, and then it got extended due to various > > > > other > > > > hacks. Our goal is to inherit the state from the BIOS so ideally > > > > the whole initial_commit thing wouldn't even exist. > > > > > > Bios doesn't enable PSR. Do you think this would be better approach > > > ?: > > > > > > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/575368/?series=129023&rev=1 > > > > > > What we just need is something triggering intel_psr_compute_config > > > + > > > psr enable. Maybe that could be separate function doing both and > > > call > > > that from intel_initial_commit. If/when we get rid of that > > > intel_initial_commit: this function would be called by that new > > > thing. > > > > I don't think we should do anything at all. PSR will get enabled by > > the > > first proper commit, if possible. > > That means PSR is disabled until there is fastset or full modeset. Is > that ok? I.e. is there some usecase where either of these doesn't > happen? Shouldn't happen, unless there is no userspace/fbcon client at all. But in that case we should just turn off the whole display and let the device enter runtime suspend. I don't think we are doing that atm. It should perhaps be done from eg. a work scheduled fairly far into the future to give userspace/fbcon enough time to initialize. > > Panel replay is also now coming to picture as it requires sink side > being enabled before link training. Maybe you have some advice on these > as well: > > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/574966/?series=128156&rev=5 > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/574979/?series=128156&rev=5 I'll have to think a bit about all of it. In general I think the sink PSR enable/disable should be moved to the full modeset/fastset sequence properly, same for most of the source side PSR setup. The only thing we should be frobbing during any other kind of commit/etc. is the control register enable bit (in case we need to actually toggle PSR, as opposed to just forcing a temporary exit with the CURSURFLIVE trick). -- Ville Syrjälä Intel
