On 1/20/2016 10:32 PM, Zanoni, Paulo R wrote:
Em Sex, 2015-12-11 às 08:39 -0800, Rodrigo Vivi escreveu:
Unfortunately we don't know all panels and platforms out there and we
found internal prototypes without VBT proper set but where only
link in standby worked well.
:) if it is internal i assume someone has to set the vbt ,we encountered
an issue
sometime back that blamed vbt as incorrect only to later learn that
the person who created the setup didn't care to configure the VBT.
So, before enable PSR by default let's instrument the PSR parameter
in a way that we can identify different panels out there that might
require or work better with link standby mode.
It is also useful to say that for backward compatibility I'm not
changing the meaning of this flag. So "0" still means disabled
and "1" means enabled with full support and maximum power savings.
v2: Use positive value instead of negative for different operation
mode
as suggested by Daniel.
v3: As Paulo suggested use 2 to force link standby and 3 to force
link
fully on. Also split the link_standby introduction in a separated
patch.
Cc: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.c | 7 ++++++-
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.c
index 835d609..f78ddf3 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.c
@@ -126,7 +126,12 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(enable_execlists,
"(-1=auto [default], 0=disabled, 1=enabled)");
module_param_named_unsafe(enable_psr, i915.enable_psr, int, 0600);
-MODULE_PARM_DESC(enable_psr, "Enable PSR (default: false)");
+MODULE_PARM_DESC(enable_psr, "Enable PSR "
+ "(0=disabled [default], 1=enabled - link mode
chosen per-platform, 2=force link-standby mode, 3=force link-off
mode)"
+ "In case you needed to force any different option,
please "
+ "report PCI device ID, subsystem vendor and
subsystem device ID "
+ "to intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, if your
machine needs it. "
+ "It will then be included in an upcoming module
version.");
Are we making a promise here? Isn't that dangerous? :P
I'd just tell the users to open bug reports.
(I'm not requiring you to change anything here, but something something
lawyers something)
module_param_named_unsafe(preliminary_hw_support,
i915.preliminary_hw_support, int, 0600);
MODULE_PARM_DESC(preliminary_hw_support,
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
index b84ec80..c3c2bb8 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
@@ -335,6 +335,12 @@ static bool intel_psr_match_conditions(struct
intel_dp *intel_dp)
return false;
}
+ if ((IS_VALLEYVIEW(dev) || IS_CHERRYVIEW(dev)) &&
+ dev_priv->psr.link_standby) {
IS_VALLEYVIEW() will return true for both valleyview and cherryview so
the above check for cherryview can be removed.
s/dev_priv->psr.link_standby/!dev_priv->psr.link_standby/
Also, I'm not sure if this chunk belongs here or at intel_psr_init(),
since it effectively disables PSR. This means that i915.enable_psr=3
disables PSR on VLV/CHV. But maybe we shouldn't care since users
shouldn't be using the option anyway. On the other hand, users may
start claiming that i915.enable_psr=X "fixed PSR" for them while
effectively it just disabled PSR, so perhaps DRM_ERROR would be better.
Anyway, I'm not requesting any change, just pointing things in case you
or someone else has any idea, but maybe I'd go with DRM_ERROR since
users usually don't know which platform supports what, so the loud
message may help them.
i agree, psr_match_conditions should check for parameters that can change
dynamically post boot to decide if we can enable psr or not,
if link_standby cannot be changed post boot we should check for it in init
so we can avoid psr being enabled in the first place.
Another check which we seem to be missing is "if (HAS_DDI(dev_priv) &&
transcoder != TRANSCODER_EDP && !dev_priv->psr.link_standby)", but this
depends on the result of the discussion of patch 1.
Everything else looks good, but it would be nice to see the opinions of
maintainers here since they always have something to say about new
i915.ko options.
+ DRM_DEBUG_KMS("PSR condition failed: Link off
requested/needed but not supported on this platform\n");
+ return false;
+ }
+
sorry i came late to this thread, but can you point me to some issues for
link off in CHT/VLV ? we have enabled link off in CHT Android and it seems
to be working fine. we can check again if we have missed something.
if (HAS_DDI(dev) && !dev_priv->psr.link_standby &&
dig_port->port != PORT_A) {
DRM_DEBUG_KMS("PSR condition failed: Link Off
requested/needed but not supported on this port\n");
@@ -771,6 +777,7 @@ void intel_psr_init(struct drm_device *dev)
dev_priv->psr_mmio_base = IS_HASWELL(dev_priv) ?
HSW_EDP_PSR_BASE : BDW_EDP_PSR_BASE;
+ /* Set link_standby x link_off defaults */
if (IS_HASWELL(dev) || IS_BROADWELL(dev))
/*
* On HSW and BDW Source implementation as an issue
with PSR
@@ -786,6 +793,16 @@ void intel_psr_init(struct drm_device *dev)
/* For new platforms let's respect VBT back again */
dev_priv->psr.link_standby = dev_priv-
vbt.psr.full_link;
+ /* Override link_standby x link_off defaults */
+ if (i915.enable_psr == 2 && !dev_priv->psr.link_standby) {
+ DRM_DEBUG_KMS("PSR: Forcing link standby\n");
+ dev_priv->psr.link_standby = true;
+ }
+ if (i915.enable_psr == 3 && dev_priv->psr.link_standby) {
+ DRM_DEBUG_KMS("PSR: Forcing main link off\n");
+ dev_priv->psr.link_standby = false;
+ }
+
INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&dev_priv->psr.work, intel_psr_work);
mutex_init(&dev_priv->psr.lock);
}
_______________________________________________
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
