On Tue, 01 Apr 2014, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Mar 2014, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> To make sure we properly follow the enable/disable sequences.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h | 1 +
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_panel.c | 5 ++-
>> 3 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
>> index bf73771..b6f7087 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
>> @@ -301,6 +301,20 @@ static u32 _pp_stat_reg(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
>> return VLV_PIPE_PP_STATUS(vlv_power_sequencer_pipe(intel_dp));
>> }
>>
>> +static void assert_pwm(struct intel_connector *connector,
>> + bool expected_state)
>> +{
>> + bool state;
>> +
>> + state = intel_panel_get_backlight(connector);
>
> If the duty cycle is regarded as a binary on/off, I'd rather add an
> additional "is enabled" call to intel_panel.c. Especially so because the
> duty cycle value returned by intel_panel_get_backlight is meaningless
> without the max value.
>
>> +
>> + WARN(state != expected_state, "pwm state failure, expected %d, found "
>> + "%d\n", expected_state, state);
>> +}
>> +
>> +#define assert_pwm_enabled(c) assert_pwm((c), true)
>> +#define assert_pwm_disabled(c) assert_pwm((c), false)
>> +
>> static bool edp_have_panel_power(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
>> {
>> struct drm_device *dev = intel_dp_to_dev(intel_dp);
>> @@ -884,6 +898,8 @@ static void intel_dp_mode_set(struct intel_encoder *encoder)
>> struct intel_crtc *crtc = to_intel_crtc(encoder->base.crtc);
>> struct drm_display_mode *adjusted_mode = &crtc->config.adjusted_mode;
>>
>> + assert_pwm_disabled(intel_dp->attached_connector);
>> +
>> /*
>> * There are four kinds of DP registers:
>> *
>> @@ -1167,6 +1183,23 @@ static void edp_panel_vdd_off(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, bool sync)
>> }
>> }
>>
>> +/*
>> + * For this and the disable sequence below, Google for actual eDP LCD timing
>> + * diagrams or check the eDP spec. Below is for reference on asserts and
>> + * does not contain Tx values for delays between steps.
>> + *
>> + * For panel on, the sequence should be:
>> + * - LCD power supply on (PP regs or VDD AUX)
>> + * - eDP should display black at this point
>> + * - HPD (if present) should go high
>> + * - AUX channel becomes available
>> + * - link training begins
>> + * - LED backlight power on
>> + * - LED PWM_EN goes high, duty cycle >min (PWM regs)
>> + * - link training completes
>> + * - LED_EN goes high (PP BLC_EN bit)
>> + */
>> +
>> void intel_edp_panel_on(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
>> {
>> struct drm_device *dev = intel_dp_to_dev(intel_dp);
>> @@ -1212,6 +1245,19 @@ void intel_edp_panel_on(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
>> }
>> }
>>
>> +/*
>> + * For panel off the sequence should be:
>> + * - LED_EN goes low (BLC_EN in our PP regs)
>> + * - LED PWM_EN goes low (PWM duty cycle 0 and PWM enable = 0)
>> + * - eDP should display black video at this point
>> + * - LED VCCS goes low (power for backlight)
>> + * - DP link goes to idle or off
>> + * - AUX goes down
>> + * - HPD line (if present) drops to low
>> + * - eDP black video stops
>> + * - LCD power supply shuts down (PP regs and VDD AUX)
>> + */
>> +
>> void intel_edp_panel_off(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
>> {
>> struct intel_digital_port *intel_dig_port = dp_to_dig_port(intel_dp);
>> @@ -1231,11 +1277,17 @@ void intel_edp_panel_off(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
>>
>> WARN(!intel_dp->want_panel_vdd, "Need VDD to turn off panel\n");
>>
>> + /* By this time the PWM and BLC bits should be off already */
>> + assert_pwm_disabled(intel_dp->attached_connector);
>> +
>> pp = ironlake_get_pp_control(intel_dp);
>> +
>> + WARN(pp & EDP_BLC_ENABLE,
>> + "backlight controller still on at panel off time\n");
>> +
>> /* We need to switch off panel power _and_ force vdd, for otherwise some
>> * panels get very unhappy and cease to work. */
>> - pp &= ~(POWER_TARGET_ON | PANEL_POWER_RESET | EDP_FORCE_VDD |
>> - EDP_BLC_ENABLE);
>> + pp &= ~(POWER_TARGET_ON | PANEL_POWER_RESET | EDP_FORCE_VDD);
>>
>> pp_ctrl_reg = _pp_ctrl_reg(intel_dp);
>>
>> @@ -1271,6 +1323,9 @@ void intel_edp_backlight_on(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
>> * allowing it to appear.
>> */
>> wait_backlight_on(intel_dp);
>> +
>> + assert_pwm_enabled(intel_dp->attached_connector);
>> +
>> pp = ironlake_get_pp_control(intel_dp);
>> pp |= EDP_BLC_ENABLE;
>>
>> @@ -1292,6 +1347,9 @@ void intel_edp_backlight_off(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
>> if (!is_edp(intel_dp))
>> return;
>>
>> + /* PWM must still be enabled here */
>> + assert_pwm_enabled(intel_dp->attached_connector);
>> +
>> intel_panel_disable_backlight(intel_dp->attached_connector);
>>
>> DRM_DEBUG_KMS("\n");
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
>> index 9002e77..0e91c40 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
>> @@ -861,6 +861,7 @@ void intel_gmch_panel_fitting(struct intel_crtc *crtc,
>> int fitting_mode);
>> void intel_panel_set_backlight(struct intel_connector *connector, u32 level,
>> u32 max);
>> +u32 intel_panel_get_backlight(struct intel_connector *connector);
>> int intel_panel_setup_backlight(struct drm_connector *connector);
>> void intel_panel_enable_backlight(struct intel_connector *connector);
>> void intel_panel_disable_backlight(struct intel_connector *connector);
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_panel.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_panel.c
>> index cb05840..21c5e6f 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_panel.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_panel.c
>> @@ -384,6 +384,9 @@ static u32 _vlv_get_backlight(struct drm_device *dev, enum pipe pipe)
>> {
>> struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
>>
>> + if (I915_READ(VLV_BLC_PWM_CTL2(pipe) & BLM_PWM_ENABLE))
>> + return 0;
>> +
>
> If our internal state is consistent, I don't think this should be
> necessary. And if our internal state isn't consistent, we should fix
> that and maybe add internal asserts within intel_panel.c.
I wrote this with the bigger picture in mind, but your check above is
also doubly wrong!
BR,
Jani.
>
>> return I915_READ(VLV_BLC_PWM_CTL(pipe)) & BACKLIGHT_DUTY_CYCLE_MASK;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -395,7 +398,7 @@ static u32 vlv_get_backlight(struct intel_connector *connector)
>> return _vlv_get_backlight(dev, pipe);
>> }
>>
>> -static u32 intel_panel_get_backlight(struct intel_connector *connector)
>> +u32 intel_panel_get_backlight(struct intel_connector *connector)
>> {
>> struct drm_device *dev = connector->base.dev;
>> struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
>> --
>> 1.8.4.2
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Intel-gfx mailing list
>> Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
>
> --
> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
