On 29-10-2024 14:28, Kandpal, Suraj wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Pottumuttu, Sai Teja <sai.teja.pottumuttu@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2024 2:13 PM
To: Kandpal, Suraj <suraj.kandpal@xxxxxxxxx>; intel-xe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/xe3lpd: Disable HDCP Line Rekeying for Xe3
On 29-10-2024 10:56, Suraj Kandpal wrote:
We need to disable HDCP Line Rekeying for Xe3 when we are using an
HDMI encoder. Also remove the Wa comment tag as this follows the bspec
and does not implement the wa.
v2: add additional definition instead of function, commit message typo
fix and update.
v3: restore lost conditional from v2.
v4: subject line and subject message updated, fix the if ladder order,
fix the bit definition order.
v5: Add the bspec link and remove the Wa comment tag
Bspec: 69964
I don't think we still address the why? part. The register and bit doesn't give
any explanation about disabling line rekeying on xe3 right?
Signed-off-by: Suraj Kandpal <suraj.kandpal@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_hdcp.c | 11 +++++++----
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h | 1 +
2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_hdcp.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_hdcp.c
index ed6aa87403e2..7a32bfef8d87 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_hdcp.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_hdcp.c
@@ -31,7 +31,6 @@
#define KEY_LOAD_TRIES 5
#define HDCP2_LC_RETRY_CNT 3
-/* WA: 16022217614 */
Probably instead of removing it we can add the lineage of the workaround
(Wa_16021352814) somewhere inside the function so that we know why are
we disabling line rekeying for those specific ip versions and steppings.
static void
intel_hdcp_disable_hdcp_line_rekeying(struct intel_encoder *encoder,
struct intel_hdcp *hdcp)
@@ -43,14 +42,18 @@ intel_hdcp_disable_hdcp_line_rekeying(struct
intel_encoder *encoder,
return;
if (DISPLAY_VER(display) >= 14) {
Not related to this patch but probably we can remove the above if right?
The internal if else ladder would take care of everything.
Why should we do the extra checks for other display versions that is two checks for display_ver<14 instead of just one check
Which would have happened .
Yeah, in that case probably we could have added this display version
check before calling intel_hdcp_disable_hdcp_line_rekeying in
_intel_hdcp2_enable itself.
But anyways, not a blocker for this patch at all.
Thanks for the clarification on other comments as well.
Thank you
Sai Teja
Regards,
Suraj Kandpal
Thank You
Sai Teja
- if (IS_DISPLAY_VER_STEP(display, IP_VER(14, 0), STEP_D0,
STEP_FOREVER))
- intel_de_rmw(display, MTL_CHICKEN_TRANS(hdcp-
cpu_transcoder),
- 0, HDCP_LINE_REKEY_DISABLE);
+ if (DISPLAY_VER(display) >= 30)
+ intel_de_rmw(display,
+ TRANS_DDI_FUNC_CTL(display, hdcp-
cpu_transcoder),
+ 0,
XE3_TRANS_DDI_HDCP_LINE_REKEY_DISABLE);
else if (IS_DISPLAY_VER_STEP(display, IP_VER(14, 1), STEP_B0,
STEP_FOREVER) ||
IS_DISPLAY_VER_STEP(display, IP_VER(20, 0),
STEP_B0, STEP_FOREVER))
intel_de_rmw(display,
TRANS_DDI_FUNC_CTL(display, hdcp-
cpu_transcoder),
0,
TRANS_DDI_HDCP_LINE_REKEY_DISABLE);
+ else if (IS_DISPLAY_VER_STEP(display, IP_VER(14, 0), STEP_D0,
STEP_FOREVER))
+ intel_de_rmw(display, MTL_CHICKEN_TRANS(hdcp-
cpu_transcoder),
+ 0, HDCP_LINE_REKEY_DISABLE);
}
}
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h index 405f409e9761..184420011a88
100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
@@ -3816,6 +3816,7 @@ enum skl_power_gate {
#define TRANS_DDI_PVSYNC (1 << 17)
#define TRANS_DDI_PHSYNC (1 << 16)
#define TRANS_DDI_PORT_SYNC_ENABLE REG_BIT(15)
+#define XE3_TRANS_DDI_HDCP_LINE_REKEY_DISABLE REG_BIT(15)
#define TRANS_DDI_EDP_INPUT_MASK (7 << 12)
#define TRANS_DDI_EDP_INPUT_A_ON (0 << 12)
#define TRANS_DDI_EDP_INPUT_A_ONOFF (4 << 12)
