On Fri, 2024-02-02 at 08:10 +0000, Manna, Animesh wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hogander, Jouni <jouni.hogander@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Friday, January 19, 2024 3:40 PM
> > To: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: Manna, Animesh <animesh.manna@xxxxxxxxx>; Hogander, Jouni
> > <jouni.hogander@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: [PATCH v3 06/21] drm/i915/psr: Check possible errors for
> > panel
> > replay as well
> >
> > On HPD interrupt we want to check if the reason for HPD was some
> > panel
> > replay error detected by monitor/panel. This is already done for
> > PSR. We
> > want to do this for panel replay as well. Modify
> > intel_psr_short_pulse to
> > support panel replay as well.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jouni Högander <jouni.hogander@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_psr.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++----
> > -
> > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_psr.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_psr.c
> > index 893c72ea8cf1..6d7ef74201d2 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_psr.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_psr.c
> > @@ -2959,6 +2959,13 @@ static void
> > psr_capability_changed_check(struct
> > intel_dp *intel_dp)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > +/*
> > + * On common bits:
> > + * DP_PSR_RFB_STORAGE_ERROR ==
> > DP_PANEL_REPLAY_RFB_STORAGE_ERROR
> > + * DP_PSR_VSC_SDP_UNCORRECTABLE_ERROR ==
> > +DP_PANEL_REPLAY_VSC_SDP_UNCORRECTABLE_ERROR
> > + * DP_PSR_LINK_CRC_ERROR == DP_PANEL_REPLAY_LINK_CRC_ERROR
> > + * this function is relying on PSR definitions */
> > void intel_psr_short_pulse(struct intel_dp *intel_dp) {
> > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dp_to_i915(intel_dp);
> > @@ -
> > 2968,7 +2975,7 @@ void intel_psr_short_pulse(struct intel_dp
> > *intel_dp)
> > DP_PSR_VSC_SDP_UNCORRECTABLE_ERROR |
> > DP_PSR_LINK_CRC_ERROR;
> >
> > - if (!CAN_PSR(intel_dp))
> > + if (!CAN_PSR(intel_dp) && !CAN_PANEL_REPLAY(intel_dp))
>
> I feel here the condition check would be:
> if (!(CAN_PSR(intel_dp) || CAN_PANEL_REPLAY(intel_dp)))
This is matter of taste. Received some time ago opposing comment. I
don't have strong opinion on this. I.e I can change it.
>
> > return;
> >
> > mutex_lock(&psr->lock);
> > @@ -2982,12 +2989,14 @@ void intel_psr_short_pulse(struct intel_dp
> > *intel_dp)
> > goto exit;
> > }
> >
> > - if (status == DP_PSR_SINK_INTERNAL_ERROR || (error_status &
> > errors)) {
> > + if ((!psr->panel_replay_enabled && status ==
> > DP_PSR_SINK_INTERNAL_ERROR) ||
> > + (error_status & errors)) {
>
> This will check only for psr, rt? .. The flag panel_replay_enabled
> will be true and will not check for error status for panel-replay.
I think DP_PSR_SINK_INTERNAL_ERROR is only in PSR status register.
error_status bits are for both and they are still checked.
>
> > intel_psr_disable_locked(intel_dp);
> > psr->sink_not_reliable = true;
> > }
> >
> > - if (status == DP_PSR_SINK_INTERNAL_ERROR && !error_status)
> > + if (!psr->panel_replay_enabled && status ==
> > DP_PSR_SINK_INTERNAL_ERROR &&
> > + !error_status)
>
> Same doubt as above.
DP_PSR_SINK_INTERNAL_ERROR doesn't exist in Panel Replay status
register. I.e. if panel replay is enabled do not check further for
internal error or error status bits.
BR,
Jouni Högander
>
> Regards,
> Animesh
>
> > drm_dbg_kms(&dev_priv->drm,
> > "PSR sink internal error, disabling
> > PSR\n");
> > if (error_status & DP_PSR_RFB_STORAGE_ERROR) @@ -3007,8
> > +3016,10 @@ void intel_psr_short_pulse(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> > /* clear status register */
> > drm_dp_dpcd_writeb(&intel_dp->aux, DP_PSR_ERROR_STATUS,
> > error_status);
> >
> > - psr_alpm_check(intel_dp);
> > - psr_capability_changed_check(intel_dp);
> > + if (!psr->panel_replay_enabled) {
> > + psr_alpm_check(intel_dp);
> > + psr_capability_changed_check(intel_dp);
> > + }
> >
> > exit:
> > mutex_unlock(&psr->lock);
> > --
> > 2.34.1
>
