On 4/16/2015 9:31 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 08:41:33AM -0700, Todd Previte wrote:
On 4/15/2015 10:42 AM, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
2015-04-15 12:37 GMT-03:00 Todd Previte <tprevite@xxxxxxxxx>:
On 4/14/2015 9:53 AM, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
2015-04-13 11:53 GMT-03:00 Todd Previte <tprevite@xxxxxxxxx>:
Adds in an EDID read after the DPCD read to accommodate test 4.2.2.1 in
the
Displayport Link CTS Core 1.2 rev1.1. This test requires an EDID read for
all HPD plug events. To reduce the amount of code, this EDID read is also
used for Link CTS tests 4.2.2.3, 4.2.2.4, 4.2.2.5 and 4.2.2.6. Actual
support for these tests is implemented in later patches in this series.
V2:
- Fixed compilation error introduced during rework
Signed-off-by: Todd Previte <tprevite@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 11 +++++++++++
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
index 23184b0..75df3e2 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
@@ -3890,6 +3890,9 @@ intel_dp_check_link_status(struct intel_dp
*intel_dp)
{
struct drm_device *dev = intel_dp_to_dev(intel_dp);
struct intel_encoder *intel_encoder =
&dp_to_dig_port(intel_dp)->base;
+ struct drm_connector *connector =
&intel_dp->attached_connector->base;
+ struct i2c_adapter *adapter = &intel_dp->aux.ddc;
+ struct edid *edid_read = NULL;
u8 sink_irq_vector;
u8 link_status[DP_LINK_STATUS_SIZE];
@@ -3906,6 +3909,14 @@ intel_dp_check_link_status(struct intel_dp
*intel_dp)
return;
}
+ /* Displayport Link CTS Core 1.2 rev1.1 EDID testing
+ * 4.2.2.1 - EDID read required for all HPD events
+ */
+ edid_read = drm_get_edid(connector, adapter);
+ if (!edid_read) {
+ DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("Invalid EDID detected\n");
+ }
+
We already briefly discussed this patch in private, so I'm going to
summarize the discussion and also add some more points here.
Frist, the actual detailed review: the indentation here is using
spaces and we're leaking the EDID. This will cause rebases to a few of
the next patches.
Back to the hight level architecture: your initial versions of the
series contained just 1 extra EDID read, and it was contained inside
the compliance testing function. Then the versions submitted a few
days ago had 2 extra EDID reads, then after some discussion you
reduced to 1 extra EDID read (the one on this patch). I previously
asked "But what about the automatic EDID read we do when we get a
hotplug? Can't we just rely on it?". I got some answers to the
question, but I was not really convinced.
Yesterday I was arguing that this extra EDID read is going to add a
small delay to every hotplug event we get, so my initial suggestion
was to organize the compliance testing in a way that would require the
user space program to call the GetResources() IOCTL to force the EDID
when needed. Your argument was that then the DP compliance testing
procedure would be testing our app for compliance, not the Kernel.
But today I decided to finally do some debugging regarding this, and I
was able to confirm that we do follow the DP requirements: we do have
an automatic EDID read done by the Kernel whenever we do a hotplug:
i915_hotplug_work_func() calls intel_dp_detect(), which ends calling
drm_get_edid() at some point. This function also does other stuff that
is required by the compliance testing, such as the DPCD reads.
Now there's a problem with using i915_hotplug_work_func(), which could
the reason why you rejected it: it only happens after
intel_dp_hpd_pulse(), which means that we only really do the EDID read
after intel_dp_handle_test_request().
I consider i915_hotplug_work_func() a fundamental part of our DP
framework, and the DP compliance testing seems to be just ignoring its
existence. So my idea for a solution here would be to make
intel_dp_handle_test_request() run on its own delayed work function.
It would wait for both i915_digport_work_func() and
i915_hotplug_work_func() to finish, and only then it would do the
normal processing. With this, we would be able to avoid the edid read
on this patch, we would maybe be able to avoid at least part of patch
2, we would maybe be able to completely avoid patch 7, and then on
patch 8 we would start touching intel_dp_get_edid() instead.
I know this is sort of a fundamental change that is being requested a
little late in the review process, and it can be frustrating, but this
aspect of the code only recently changed (I was fine with the EDID
reads just in the compliance testing function), and since the DP
compliance code is quite complex, it took me a while to realize
everything that's going on and what is the purpose of each piece. I
also think that, since this idea will allow the compliance testing to
take into consideration the work done by i915_hotplug_work_func(),
compliance testing will better reflect the behavior that is actually
done by the Kernel when DP devices are plugged/unplugged. And I did
ask about those new EDID reads as soon as I started reviewing the
patch that introduced them.
Now, since I know how frustrating it is to have to change a
significant portion of the code once again, I will leave to the
maintainers the decision of whether the current proposed
implementation is acceptable or if we want to make the DP compliance
testing code take into consideration the work done by
i915_hotplug_work_func(). I would also like to know your opinion on
this. Maybe my idea just doesn't make sense because of something else
I didn't realize :)
I don't think this is a good idea. The work loop aspect seems like a very
complex solution solution to a problem that is relatively simple. In a
discussion with Daniel, he indicated that adding a work loop is something to
be avoided unless it's *really* necessary, as they are prone to race
conditions. In this case, I just don't see that it's necessary.
The workqueue thing was just an idea to implement a solution for the
real problem. I think we should be focusing about discussing the fact
that we're not taking i915_hotplug_work_func() into consideration when
doing the compliance testing, not on the fact that one of the possible
implementations could use a workqueue. I'd still like to hear your
arguments on that.
Fair enough.
So I've been looking into this and why the i915_hotplug_work_func wasn't
part of this. It is, as you said, a relatively fundamental code path for
Displayport through the driver. What I discovered was that this function is
never called on HSW (my primary test vehicle), mainly because
check_link_status() returns IRQ_HANDLED instead of IRQ_NONE. The work
function for HSW is i915_digport_work_func, so when it gets the IRQ_HANDLED
return code, it doesn't fall through to the legacy i915_hotplug_work_func
handler. This is important because this handler calls intel_hpd_irq_event
which is where the ->detect connector function is called. And
intel_dp_detect() is where all the happy goodness for Displayport begins.
Up until I discovered this, I had mistakenly propagated that problem forward
in to the SST case in intel_dp_hot_pulse() in patch 6 by returning
IRQ_HANDLED instead of IRQ_NONE, which is what the code was doing for SST
prior to patch 6. With this problem corrected (as it is in the latest update
in patch set V6) the work functions are now called as they should be. The
point being that this opens up the possibility of using elements along this
path to pass compliance testing, thereby creating a more valid test case.
With this in mind, I am not opposed to using elements along that path to
satisfy compliance requirements (that's the spirit of the tests, anyways)
but as I've indicated, there are cases where we need to take special steps
(like the edid_corrupt flag) in order to do the right things to pass the
tests. I have concerns about trying to do that at this point, as it requires
substantial rework to that code path that have a significant chance of
breaking things. So to avoid that, I propose that this patch be merged now
so that a working solution is in place. This discussion should continue and
we can decide where to put things in the hotplug_work path to satisfy the
compliance requires over the course of some followup patches.
I've looked a bit at all this and I think the other issue here is the
placement of intel_dp_handle_test_request in check_link_status. This has
been done almost 4 years ago in
commit a60f0e38d72a5e24085d6e7e27a4cadc20ae268a
Author: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu Oct 20 15:09:17 2011 -0700
drm/i915: add DP test request handling
but never contained (up to this point) any functional code. It was however
dutifully moved around together with the other code. And way back the
placement even made some sense - check_link_status was called
unconditionally from our hot_plug handler. But since the MST rework (and a
few other things) happened that has been changed pretty radically and the
current place where the test request handler is called just doesn't seem
to make that much sense any more.
I will agree with you on this. In light of my earlier findings, I think
that check_link_status may have become a superfluous function call, much
like the old intel_dp_hot_plug() function. However, there is some code
that needs to be carried forward into the normal work func path to make
compliance testing work properly. Those things are as follows:
- A fresh EDID read early in the HPD process
- Detection of a corrupted EDID at the same point
- A check of the Displayport IRQ_VECTOR register to determine if a
test request has occurred
There is also one change that must be made to intel_dp_hpd_pulse(), and
this is to make sure that it returns IRQ_NONE for the SST case such that
the hotplug_work_func gets invoked. I believe that is the key to
restoring working status to this code path for the reasons I detailed
above.
As an aside, I think the obsolete functions should be removed instead of
remaining in the code base. This should be done as a separate patch so
that it's clear and bisectable should that become an issue in the future.
While I started pulling in patches I also noticed other places where we
duplicate existing logic (e.g. the dpcd read), so this isn't just about
the edid.
Paulo noticed this as well and I was addressing it as it came up in
review. In the patch churn some of those changes may have been lost or
reverted, but this is something I will continue to fix as I work out
this code.
The other aspect here is that nowadays we do cache the edid for dp ports
aggressively, which means if we don't read the edid the kernel will indeed
keep on using a stale one. Hence there's a good risk that we don't just
have a minor piece of duct-tape to keep the somewhat strange expectations
of DP compliance testers happy but might be hiding a real bug in our DP
code. Giving how many we've had that seems fairly likely and I'm not happy
with sweeping this under the rug. This definitely needs a solid
analysis and explanation either way (i.e. whether this is a bug or just an
overly strict dp compliance tester requirement).
I think this can be resolved by starting to rework this in
intel_dp_detect(). The DPCD and EDID reads/updates happen here, so this
is the most logical place to start integrating the code from
check_link_status(). I believe it can be done such that it satisfies
both real world operations and compliance testing, with a minimum of
special cases to accommodate the test apparatus.
Finally there's the dp hotplug handling. Ever since MST support was merged
this has a been a lot of fun and took us a while to make it work correctly
- lots of deadlocks and other issues. And given the above we still seem to
have regressions due to MST support, or at least evidence for such. Since
this is a fairly fragile piece of code, which is also not that well-tested
(we don't have any MST hw in our test matrix yet) I prefer to keep changes
to a minimum. Merging these patches here first and then potentially
undoing them again because the bug has been the (mis)placement of the test
request handler in the MST patches feels too risky.
I can understand your point here. As I indicated above, I think the only
real change required is to ensure that IRQ_NONE is returned for the SST
case such that the correct work functions are invoked.
Given all that I'd like to hold off merging these patches that rework the
code around the check_link_status function until we have clarity here.
I've pulled in the other patches meanwhile which are reviewed and ready. I
also think we can pull in the drm_edid.c patch with the statistics code we
need for compliance testing ahead of resolving the above opens. And it
would be good to get some feedback from other (non-intel) drm developers
beforehand, the changes are quite invasive in some parts.
I've chatted a lot with Todd and Paulo and I think my decision here and
the rough plan laid out is the best choice I have from a technical point
of view.
Thanks, Daniel
Thank you for the feedback, Daniel. I think this discussion needs to be
carried forward into the V6 of the patch set to keep things current
there. I'm going to begin working on the solution for this now.
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
