Re: [PATCH 3/10] drm/i915: Enable/disable DRRS

[Ramalingam C <ramalingam.c@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Friday 16 January 2015 04:16 AM, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:

On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Vandana Kannan
<vandana.kannan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Calling enable/disable DRRS when enable/disable DDI are called.
These functions are responsible for setup of drrs data (in enable) and
reset of drrs (in disable).
has_drrs is true when downclock_mode is found and SEAMLESS_DRRS is set in
the VBT. A check has been added for has_drrs in these functions, to make
sure the functions go through only if DRRS will work on the platform with
the attached panel.

Signed-off-by: Vandana Kannan <vandana.kannan@xxxxxxxxx>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c |  2 ++
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c  | 54 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h |  2 ++
 3 files changed, 58 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c
index 1c92ad4..c704434 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c
@@ -1605,6 +1605,7 @@ static void intel_enable_ddi(struct intel_encoder *intel_encoder)

                intel_edp_backlight_on(intel_dp);
                intel_psr_enable(intel_dp);
+               intel_edp_drrs_enable(intel_dp);
        }

        if (intel_crtc->config.has_audio) {
@@ -1630,6 +1631,7 @@ static void intel_disable_ddi(struct intel_encoder *intel_encoder)
        if (type == INTEL_OUTPUT_EDP) {
                struct intel_dp *intel_dp = enc_to_intel_dp(encoder);

+               intel_edp_drrs_disable(intel_dp);
                intel_psr_disable(intel_dp);
                intel_edp_backlight_off(intel_dp);
        }
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
index 30b3aa1..5e7dc7b 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
@@ -4819,6 +4819,60 @@ static void intel_dp_set_drrs_state(struct drm_device *dev, int refresh_rate)
        DRM_DEBUG_KMS("eDP Refresh Rate set to : %dHz\n", refresh_rate);
 }

+void intel_edp_drrs_enable(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
+{
+       struct drm_device *dev = intel_dp_to_dev(intel_dp);
+       struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
+       struct intel_digital_port *dig_port = dp_to_dig_port(intel_dp);
+       struct drm_crtc *crtc = dig_port->base.base.crtc;
+       struct intel_crtc *intel_crtc = to_intel_crtc(crtc);
+
+       if (!intel_crtc->config.has_drrs) {
+               DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Panel doesn't support DRRS\n");
+               return;
+       }
+
+       mutex_lock(&dev_priv->drrs.mutex);
+       if (dev_priv->drrs.dp) {
+               DRM_DEBUG_KMS("DRRS already enabled\n");

Although I'm in favor of reducing WARNS I have to ask: should be a warn_on here?

Yes, Thats correct. we should give a warning message for repeated enable call.

+               mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drrs.mutex);

goto unlock?

Could avoid the repeated mutex_unlock. We will go with that.

+               return;
+       }
+
+       dev_priv->drrs.busy_frontbuffer_bits = 0;
+
+       dev_priv->drrs.dp = intel_dp;
+       mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drrs.mutex);
+}
+
+void intel_edp_drrs_disable(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
+{
+       struct drm_device *dev = intel_dp_to_dev(intel_dp);
+       struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
+       struct intel_digital_port *dig_port = dp_to_dig_port(intel_dp);
+       struct drm_crtc *crtc = dig_port->base.base.crtc;
+       struct intel_crtc *intel_crtc = to_intel_crtc(crtc);
+
+       if (!intel_crtc->config.has_drrs)
+               return;
+
+       mutex_lock(&dev_priv->drrs.mutex);
+       if (!dev_priv->drrs.dp) {
+               mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drrs.mutex);
+               return;
+       }
+
+       if (dev_priv->drrs.refresh_rate_type == DRRS_LOW_RR)
+               intel_dp_set_drrs_state(dev_priv->dev,
+                       intel_dp->attached_connector->panel.
+                       fixed_mode->vrefresh);
+
+       dev_priv->drrs.dp = NULL;
+       mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drrs.mutex);
+
+       cancel_delayed_work_sync(&dev_priv->drrs.work);
+}
+
 static void intel_edp_drrs_work(struct work_struct *work)
 {
        struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv =
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
index 2ba045d..6f3ad3b 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
@@ -1003,6 +1003,8 @@ int intel_update_plane(struct drm_plane *plane, struct drm_crtc *crtc,
                       uint32_t src_x, uint32_t src_y,
                       uint32_t src_w, uint32_t src_h);
 int intel_disable_plane(struct drm_plane *plane);
+void intel_edp_drrs_enable(struct intel_dp *intel_dp);
+void intel_edp_drrs_disable(struct intel_dp *intel_dp);

This causes conflict on nightly. There is a rebased version at:
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~vivijim/drm-intel/log/?h=review-drrs

 /* intel_dp_mst.c */
 int intel_dp_mst_encoder_init(struct intel_digital_port *intel_dig_port, int conn_id);
--
2.0.1

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

with or without bikesheds in place feel free to use:
Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx>

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx