Re: [PATCH 2/7] drm/i915/psr: Try to program link training times correctly

["Jindal, Sonika" <sonika.jindal@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 5/18/2016 10:17 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:

Oops. Hw default for programming these fields to 0 is "skip link
training". Display won't take that too well usually.

But we were defaulting it to value 0, which means 500us for both TP1 and TP2 or TP3 time.
I dont think it means skip link training. This is just to set the time for the patterns.
Skip aux handshake can happen if bit 12 of SRD_CTL is set.

Does this solution help in fixing the bug mentioned here?

v2: Unbotch the math a bit.

v3: Drop debug hunk.

Tested-by: Lyude <cpaul@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Lyude <cpaul@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=95176
Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Sonika Jindal <sonika.jindal@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Durgadoss R <durgadoss.r@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Pandiyan, Dhinakaran" <dhinakaran.pandiyan@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxxx>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
index c3abae4bc596..a788d1e9589b 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
@@ -280,7 +280,10 @@ static void hsw_psr_enable_source(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
 	 * with the 5 or 6 idle patterns.
 	 */
 	uint32_t idle_frames = max(6, dev_priv->vbt.psr.idle_frames);
-	uint32_t val = 0x0;
+	uint32_t val = EDP_PSR_ENABLE;
+
+	val |= max_sleep_time << EDP_PSR_MAX_SLEEP_TIME_SHIFT;
+	val |= idle_frames << EDP_PSR_IDLE_FRAME_SHIFT;
 
 	if (IS_HASWELL(dev))
 		val |= EDP_PSR_MIN_LINK_ENTRY_TIME_8_LINES;
@@ -288,14 +291,50 @@ static void hsw_psr_enable_source(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
 	if (dev_priv->psr.link_standby)
 		val |= EDP_PSR_LINK_STANDBY;
 
-	I915_WRITE(EDP_PSR_CTL, val |
-		   max_sleep_time << EDP_PSR_MAX_SLEEP_TIME_SHIFT |
-		   idle_frames << EDP_PSR_IDLE_FRAME_SHIFT |
-		   EDP_PSR_ENABLE);
+	if (dev_priv->vbt.psr.tp1_wakeup_time > 5)
+		val |= EDP_PSR_TP1_TIME_2500us;
+	else if (dev_priv->vbt.psr.tp1_wakeup_time > 1)
+		val |= EDP_PSR_TP1_TIME_500us;
+	else if (dev_priv->vbt.psr.tp1_wakeup_time > 0)
+		val |= EDP_PSR_TP1_TIME_100us;
+	else
+		val |= EDP_PSR_TP1_TIME_0us;
+
+	if (dev_priv->vbt.psr.tp2_tp3_wakeup_time > 5)
+		val |= EDP_PSR_TP2_TP3_TIME_2500us;
+	else if (dev_priv->vbt.psr.tp2_tp3_wakeup_time > 1)
+		val |= EDP_PSR_TP2_TP3_TIME_500us;
+	else if (dev_priv->vbt.psr.tp2_tp3_wakeup_time > 0)
+		val |= EDP_PSR_TP2_TP3_TIME_100us;
+	else
+		val |= EDP_PSR_TP2_TP3_TIME_0us;
+
+	if (intel_dp_source_supports_hbr2(intel_dp) &&
+	    drm_dp_tps3_supported(intel_dp->dpcd))
+		val |= EDP_PSR_TP1_TP3_SEL;
+	else
+		val |= EDP_PSR_TP1_TP2_SEL;
+
+	I915_WRITE(EDP_PSR_CTL, val);
+
+	if (!dev_priv->psr.psr2_support)
+		return;
+
+	/* FIXME: selective update is probably totally broken because it doesn't
+	 * mesh at all with our frontbuffer tracking. And the hw alone isn't
+	 * good enough. */
+	val = EDP_PSR2_ENABLE | EDP_SU_TRACK_ENABLE;
+
+	if (dev_priv->vbt.psr.tp2_tp3_wakeup_time > 5)
+		val |= EDP_PSR2_TP2_TIME_2500;
+	else if (dev_priv->vbt.psr.tp2_tp3_wakeup_time > 1)
+		val |= EDP_PSR2_TP2_TIME_500;
+	else if (dev_priv->vbt.psr.tp2_tp3_wakeup_time > 0)
+		val |= EDP_PSR2_TP2_TIME_100;
+	else
+		val |= EDP_PSR2_TP2_TIME_50;
 
-	if (dev_priv->psr.psr2_support)
-		I915_WRITE(EDP_PSR2_CTL, EDP_PSR2_ENABLE |
-				EDP_SU_TRACK_ENABLE | EDP_PSR2_TP2_TIME_100);
+	I915_WRITE(EDP_PSR2_CTL, val);
 }
 
 static bool intel_psr_match_conditions(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)

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