On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 10:05:21PM +0000, Vivi, Rodrigo wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-07-28 at 13:25 -0700, Rafael Antognolli wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 04:35:50PM -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > > By Vesa DP 1.2 spec TEST_CRC_COUNT is a "4 bit wrap counter which
> > > increments each time the TEST_CRC_x_x are updated."
> > >
> > > However if we are trying to verify the screen hasn't changed we get
> > > same (count, crc) pair twice. Without this patch we would return
> > > -ETIMEOUT in this case.
> > >
> > > So, if in 6 vblanks the pair (count, crc) hasn't changed we
> > > return it anyway instead of returning error and let test case decide
> > > if it was right or not.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Looks good.
> >
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 21 +++++++++++++++------
> > > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > > index c7372a1..e99ec7a 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > > @@ -4028,6 +4028,7 @@ int intel_dp_sink_crc(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, u8 *crc)
> > > u8 buf;
> > > int count, ret;
> > > int attempts = 6;
> > > + bool old_equal_new;
> > >
> > > ret = intel_dp_sink_crc_start(intel_dp);
> > > if (ret)
> > > @@ -4042,6 +4043,7 @@ int intel_dp_sink_crc(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, u8 *crc)
> > > goto stop;
> > > }
> > > count = buf & DP_TEST_COUNT_MASK;
> > > +
> > > /*
> > > * Count might be reset during the loop. In this case
> > > * last known count needs to be reset as well.
> > > @@ -4053,17 +4055,24 @@ int intel_dp_sink_crc(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, u8 *crc)
> > > ret = -EIO;
> > > goto stop;
> > > }
> > > - } while (--attempts && (count == 0 || (count == intel_dp->sink_crc.last_count &&
> > > - !memcmp(intel_dp->sink_crc.last_crc, crc,
> > > - 6 * sizeof(u8)))));
> > > +
> > > + old_equal_new = (count == intel_dp->sink_crc.last_count &&
> > > + !memcmp(intel_dp->sink_crc.last_crc, crc,
> > > + 6 * sizeof(u8)));
> > > +
> > > + } while (--attempts && (count == 0 || old_equal_new));
> > >
> > > intel_dp->sink_crc.last_count = buf & DP_TEST_COUNT_MASK;
> > > memcpy(intel_dp->sink_crc.last_crc, crc, 6 * sizeof(u8));
> > >
> > > if (attempts == 0) {
> > > - DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Panel is unable to calculate CRC after 6 vblanks\n");
> > > - ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
> > > - goto stop;
> > > + if (old_equal_new) {
> > > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Unreliable Sink CRC counter: Current returned CRC is identical to the previous one\n");
> >
> > Isn't this line a little too long?
>
> I agree, but I had no idea how to make it shorter. I believe this long
> debug message is the only case where we can go over 80 characters in
> i915. but if it isn't true and/or have a suggestion how to make it
> shorter please let me know that I can change.
dmesg output is explicitly an exception since breaking lines makes it much
harder to grep for a line you spot in dmesg. Ofc 500 lines would be a bit
too much, we're breaking those. But this one here is totally fine.
Remember, checkpatch is just suggestions mostly, not law.
-Daniel
>
> >
> > > + } else {
> > > + DRM_ERROR("Panel is unable to calculate any CRC after 6 vblanks\n");
> > > + ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
> > > + goto stop;
> > > + }
> > > }
> > >
> > > stop:
> > > --
> > > 2.1.0
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Intel-gfx mailing list
> > > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
