On to, 2016-03-31 at 19:47 +0300, Kannan, Vandana wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Deak, Imre
> > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 9:45 AM
> > To: Kannan, Vandana <vandana.kannan@xxxxxxxxx>; intel-
> > gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: Nikula, Jani <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] drm/i915: BXT DDI PHY sequence BUN
> >
> > On to, 2016-03-31 at 22:40 +0530, Vandana Kannan wrote:
> > > According to the BSpec update, bit 7 of PORT_CL1CM_DW0 register
> > needs
> > > to be checked to ensure that the register is in accessible state.
> > > Also, based on a BSpec update, changing the timeout value to check
> > > iphypwrgood, from 10ms to wait for up to 100us.
> > >
> > > v2: use wait_for_us instead of the atomic call.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Vandana Kannan <vandana.kannan@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Reported-by: Philippe Lecluse <Philippe.Lecluse@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Deak, Imre <imre.deak@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Nikula, Jani <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h | 1 +
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c | 15 +++++++++++++--
> > > 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h index 7dfc400..9a02bfc 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
> > > @@ -1318,6 +1318,7 @@ enum skl_disp_power_wells {
> > > #define _PORT_CL1CM_DW0_A 0x162000
> > > #define _PORT_CL1CM_DW0_BC 0x6C000
> > > #define PHY_POWER_GOOD (1 << 16)
> > > +#define PHY_RESERVED (1 << 7)
> > > #define BXT_PORT_CL1CM_DW0(phy) _BXT_PHY((phy),
> > _PORT_CL1CM_DW0_BC, \
> > > _PORT_CL1CM_DW0_A)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c
> > > index 62de9f4..05a5b3a 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c
> > > @@ -2669,9 +2669,20 @@ static void broxton_phy_init(struct
> > drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > > val |= GT_DISPLAY_POWER_ON(phy);
> > > I915_WRITE(BXT_P_CR_GT_DISP_PWRON, val);
> > >
> > > - /* Considering 10ms timeout until BSpec is updated */
> > > - if (wait_for(I915_READ(BXT_PORT_CL1CM_DW0(phy)) &
> > PHY_POWER_GOOD, 10))
> > > + /*
> > > + * The PHY registers start out inaccessible and respond to reads
> > with
> > > + * all 1s. Eventually they become accessible as they power up, then
> > > + * the reserved bit will give the default 0. Poll on the reserved bit
> > > + * becoming 0 to find when the PHY is accessible.
> > > + * HW team confirmed that the time to reach phypowergood status
> > is
> > > + * anywhere between 50 us and 100us.
> > > + */
> > > + if (wait_for_us(((!(I915_READ(BXT_PORT_CL1CM_DW0(phy)) &
> > > + PHY_RESERVED)) &&
> > > + ((I915_READ(BXT_PORT_CL1CM_DW0(phy)) &
> > > + PHY_POWER_GOOD) ==
> > PHY_POWER_GOOD)), 100)) {
> > > DRM_ERROR("timeout during PHY%d power on\n", phy);
> >
> > Thanks. This is still missing Jani's comment, that is reading out the register
> > only once and applying a mask before comparing against
> > PHY_POWER_GOOD.
> >
> > --Imre
> >
> [Vandana]
> Oh! Thought he said its fine on an updated mail.
Hm, if you check below,
>
> "
> > > + if (wait_for_atomic_us(((!(I915_READ(BXT_PORT_CL1CM_DW0(phy)) &
> > > + PHY_RESERVED)) &&
> > > + ((I915_READ(BXT_PORT_CL1CM_DW0(phy)) &
> > > + PHY_POWER_GOOD) == PHY_POWER_GOOD)), 100)) {
> >
> > Is there any reason why you'd need to do the read twice? Why not just
> > write it as:
> >
> > (I915_READ(BXT_PORT_CL1CM_DW0(phy)) & (PHY_RESERVED | PHY_POWER_GOOD))
> > == PHY_POWER_GOOD
>
> AFAICT this should be fine.
This just means what I also asked. I'd prefer this, since reading out the
register twice is redundant and makes the reader wonder why it was needed
in the first place.
--Imre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
