From: "Nautiyal, Ankit K" <ankit.k.nautiyal@intel.com>
To: Pablo Ceballos <pceballos@google.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] drm/i915/display/lspcon: Increase LSPCON mode settle timeout
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2023 10:05:10 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6b49563d-e9e7-ae8e-582e-f4aead06de0a@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230614235452.3765265-1-pceballos@google.com>
On 6/15/2023 5:24 AM, Pablo Ceballos wrote:
> This is to eliminate all cases of "*ERROR* LSPCON mode hasn't settled",
> followed by link training errors. Intel engineers recommended increasing
> this timeout and that does resolve the issue.
>
> On some CometLake-based device designs the Parade PS175 takes more than
> 400ms to settle in PCON mode. 100 reboot trials on one device resulted
> in a median settle time of 440ms and a maximum of 444ms. Even after
> increasing the timeout to 500ms, 2% of devices still had this error. So
> this increases the timeout to 800ms.
In one of the gitlab issue, it was tried with 1000ms as well, situation
did improve, but issue didn't get fully resolved. [1].
I was wondering if trying to set LS/PCON mode multiple time will have
any effect.
Unfortunately I do not have access to machine with Parade LSPCON chip,
had suggested in yet another git lab issue [2].
I have a patch for this, sent to try-bot, though not sent to intel-gfx
yet [3].
The timeout value was already increased from 100 ms to 400 ms earlier too.
If there is indeed no other way, perhaps need to have this solution.
[1] https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/4516#note_1406500
[2] https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/4458#note_1922654
[3] Patch :
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/538819/?series=118208&rev=1
Regards,
Ankit
>
> Signed-off-by: Pablo Ceballos <pceballos@google.com>
> ---
>
> Changelog since v1:
> - Added more details in the commit message
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_lspcon.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_lspcon.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_lspcon.c
> index bb3b5355a0d9..d7299fdc43ad 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_lspcon.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_lspcon.c
> @@ -167,7 +167,7 @@ static enum drm_lspcon_mode lspcon_wait_mode(struct intel_lspcon *lspcon,
> drm_dbg_kms(&i915->drm, "Waiting for LSPCON mode %s to settle\n",
> lspcon_mode_name(mode));
>
> - wait_for((current_mode = lspcon_get_current_mode(lspcon)) == mode, 400);
> + wait_for((current_mode = lspcon_get_current_mode(lspcon)) == mode, 800);
> if (current_mode != mode)
> drm_err(&i915->drm, "LSPCON mode hasn't settled\n");
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Nautiyal, Ankit K" <ankit.k.nautiyal@intel.com>
To: Pablo Ceballos <pceballos@google.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] drm/i915/display/lspcon: Increase LSPCON mode settle timeout
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2023 10:05:10 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6b49563d-e9e7-ae8e-582e-f4aead06de0a@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230614235452.3765265-1-pceballos@google.com>
On 6/15/2023 5:24 AM, Pablo Ceballos wrote:
> This is to eliminate all cases of "*ERROR* LSPCON mode hasn't settled",
> followed by link training errors. Intel engineers recommended increasing
> this timeout and that does resolve the issue.
>
> On some CometLake-based device designs the Parade PS175 takes more than
> 400ms to settle in PCON mode. 100 reboot trials on one device resulted
> in a median settle time of 440ms and a maximum of 444ms. Even after
> increasing the timeout to 500ms, 2% of devices still had this error. So
> this increases the timeout to 800ms.
In one of the gitlab issue, it was tried with 1000ms as well, situation
did improve, but issue didn't get fully resolved. [1].
I was wondering if trying to set LS/PCON mode multiple time will have
any effect.
Unfortunately I do not have access to machine with Parade LSPCON chip,
had suggested in yet another git lab issue [2].
I have a patch for this, sent to try-bot, though not sent to intel-gfx
yet [3].
The timeout value was already increased from 100 ms to 400 ms earlier too.
If there is indeed no other way, perhaps need to have this solution.
[1] https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/4516#note_1406500
[2] https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/4458#note_1922654
[3] Patch :
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/538819/?series=118208&rev=1
Regards,
Ankit
>
> Signed-off-by: Pablo Ceballos <pceballos@google.com>
> ---
>
> Changelog since v1:
> - Added more details in the commit message
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_lspcon.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_lspcon.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_lspcon.c
> index bb3b5355a0d9..d7299fdc43ad 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_lspcon.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_lspcon.c
> @@ -167,7 +167,7 @@ static enum drm_lspcon_mode lspcon_wait_mode(struct intel_lspcon *lspcon,
> drm_dbg_kms(&i915->drm, "Waiting for LSPCON mode %s to settle\n",
> lspcon_mode_name(mode));
>
> - wait_for((current_mode = lspcon_get_current_mode(lspcon)) == mode, 400);
> + wait_for((current_mode = lspcon_get_current_mode(lspcon)) == mode, 800);
> if (current_mode != mode)
> drm_err(&i915->drm, "LSPCON mode hasn't settled\n");
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-06-15 4:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-06-14 23:54 [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] drm/i915/display/lspcon: Increase LSPCON mode settle timeout Pablo Ceballos
2023-06-14 23:54 ` Pablo Ceballos
2023-06-14 23:54 ` Pablo Ceballos
2023-06-15 4:35 ` Nautiyal, Ankit K [this message]
2023-06-15 4:35 ` [Intel-gfx] " Nautiyal, Ankit K
2023-07-07 19:34 ` Pablo Ceballos
2023-07-07 19:34 ` Pablo Ceballos
2023-07-07 19:34 ` Pablo Ceballos
2023-07-10 4:02 ` Nautiyal, Ankit K
2023-07-10 4:02 ` Nautiyal, Ankit K
2023-07-10 4:02 ` Nautiyal, Ankit K
2023-06-15 7:44 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for drm/i915/display/lspcon: Increase LSPCON mode settle timeout (rev3) Patchwork
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=6b49563d-e9e7-ae8e-582e-f4aead06de0a@intel.com \
--to=ankit.k.nautiyal@intel.com \
--cc=airlied@gmail.com \
--cc=daniel@ffwll.ch \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pceballos@google.com \
--cc=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
--cc=sam@ravnborg.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.