> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hogander, Jouni <jouni.hogander@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, May 24, 2024 11:49 AM
> To: Manna, Animesh <animesh.manna@xxxxxxxxx>; intel-
> gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Kahola, Mika <mika.kahola@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/17] drm/i915/psr: Store pr_dpcd in intel_dp
>
> On Fri, 2024-05-24 at 05:55 +0000, Manna, Animesh wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Hogander, Jouni <jouni.hogander@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2024 2:17 PM
> > > To: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Cc: Manna, Animesh <animesh.manna@xxxxxxxxx>; Kahola, Mika
> > > <mika.kahola@xxxxxxxxx>; Hogander, Jouni <jouni.hogander@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Subject: [PATCH v2 01/17] drm/i915/psr: Store pr_dpcd in intel_dp
> > >
> > > We need pr_dpcd contents for early transport validity check on eDP
> > > Panel Replay and in debugfs interface to dump out panel early
> > > transport capability.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jouni Högander <jouni.hogander@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > .../drm/i915/display/intel_display_types.h | 1 +
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_psr.c | 19 ++++++---------
> > > ----
> > > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_types.h
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_types.h
> > > index 9678c2b157f6..6fbfe8a18f45 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_types.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_types.h
> > > @@ -1743,6 +1743,7 @@ struct intel_dp {
> > > bool use_max_params;
> > > u8 dpcd[DP_RECEIVER_CAP_SIZE];
> > > u8 psr_dpcd[EDP_PSR_RECEIVER_CAP_SIZE];
> > > + u8 pr_dpcd;
> > > u8 downstream_ports[DP_MAX_DOWNSTREAM_PORTS];
> > > u8 edp_dpcd[EDP_DISPLAY_CTL_CAP_SIZE];
> > > u8 lttpr_common_caps[DP_LTTPR_COMMON_CAP_SIZE];
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_psr.c
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_psr.c
> > > index d18baeb971bb..ba92f71b82d9 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_psr.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_psr.c
> > > @@ -559,20 +559,10 @@ static void
> > > intel_dp_get_su_granularity(struct
> > > intel_dp *intel_dp) static void _panel_replay_init_dpcd(struct
> > > intel_dp
> > > *intel_dp) {
> > > struct drm_i915_private *i915 = dp_to_i915(intel_dp);
> > > - u8 pr_dpcd = 0;
> > > -
> > > - intel_dp->psr.sink_panel_replay_support = false;
> > > - drm_dp_dpcd_readb(&intel_dp->aux, DP_PANEL_REPLAY_CAP,
> > > &pr_dpcd);
> > > -
> > > - if (!(pr_dpcd & DP_PANEL_REPLAY_SUPPORT)) {
> > > - drm_dbg_kms(&i915->drm,
> > > - "Panel replay is not supported by
> > > panel\n");
> >
> > Panel Replat not supported print are we removing purposefully or
> > missed somehow in refactoring?
>
> I removed it purposefully. We do not have that for PSR either. I don't see that
> as a reasonable to printout what features panel is not supporting. Having
> debug printout saying if it's supported is enough to my opinion. Do you agree
> or do you want to keep it?
Ok for me .. maybe good to mention in commit description.
Regards,
Animesh
>
> BR,
>
> Jouni Högander
> >
> > Regards,
> > Animesh
> > > - return;
> > > - }
> > >
> > > intel_dp->psr.sink_panel_replay_support = true;
> > >
> > > - if (pr_dpcd & DP_PANEL_REPLAY_SU_SUPPORT)
> > > + if (intel_dp->pr_dpcd & DP_PANEL_REPLAY_SU_SUPPORT)
> > > intel_dp->psr.sink_panel_replay_su_support = true;
> > >
> > > drm_dbg_kms(&i915->drm,
> > > @@ -630,10 +620,13 @@ static void _psr_init_dpcd(struct intel_dp
> > > *intel_dp)
> > >
> > > void intel_psr_init_dpcd(struct intel_dp *intel_dp) {
> > > - _panel_replay_init_dpcd(intel_dp);
> > > -
> > > drm_dp_dpcd_read(&intel_dp->aux, DP_PSR_SUPPORT, intel_dp-
> > > > psr_dpcd,
> > > sizeof(intel_dp->psr_dpcd));
> > > + drm_dp_dpcd_readb(&intel_dp->aux, DP_PANEL_REPLAY_CAP,
> > > + &intel_dp->pr_dpcd);
> > > +
> > > + if (intel_dp->pr_dpcd & DP_PANEL_REPLAY_SUPPORT)
> > > + _panel_replay_init_dpcd(intel_dp);
> > >
> > > if (intel_dp->psr_dpcd[0])
> > > _psr_init_dpcd(intel_dp);
> > > --
> > > 2.34.1
> >
