From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
To: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-xe] [PATCH 1/3] fixup! drm/xe/display: Implement display support
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2023 17:40:22 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87pm1vg46h.fsf@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87ttr7g83k.fsf@intel.com>
On Tue, 03 Oct 2023, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Oct 2023, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> wrote:
>> We have an abstraction for "has display", and it's
>> HAS_DISPLAY(). Unfortunately, it requires access to
>> DISPLAY_RUNTIME_INFO(), so include compat-i915-headers/i915_drv.h too,
>> although it's a bit meh.
>>
>> Looking at this makes me think there's a bunch of confusion in:
>>
>> - the pipe_mask or now HAS_DISPLAY() checks
>> - the global enable_display checks
>> - the xe->info.enable_display checks
>> - redefinition of INTEL_DISPLAY_ENABLED()
>>
>> I really don't understand this, but it all looks very suspicious. This
>> change leaves all that in place, unmodified.
>
> To elaborate, this statement in xe_pci.c conflates three different
> concepts into one, and it just does not work like this:
>
> xe->info.enable_display = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DRM_XE_DISPLAY) &&
> enable_display &&
> desc->has_display;
>
> CONFIG_DRM_XE_DISPLAY describes whether display support has been built
> into the driver. CONFIG_DRM_XE_DISPLAY=n is fine if there is no display
> hardware. Otherwise, the display hardware will be left in whatever state
> the BIOS/GOP left it, e.g. consuming a bunch of power which is not
> desirable. (Even with CONFIG_DRM_XE_DISPLAY=n we might want to include
> enough display code to probe and warn about this scenario.)
>
> enable_display is a module parameter apparently intended to disable
> display dynamically. Similar to the above, if CONFIG_DRM_XE_DISPLAY=y
> but enable_display==false, the display hardware will be left in whatever
> state the BIOS/GOP left it. In i915, the module parameter is
> i915.disable_display, and it does run a bunch of display code to take
> over the hardware, put it to sleep, and keep all connectors
> disconnected. If you have display hardware, this is the sensible thing
> to do.
>
> desc->has_display means that we've probed the hardware and found it's
> not there, and we shouldn't touch it.
I've sent a series superseeding this one, and addressing some of the
issues listed above [1].
BR,
Jani.
[1] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/124561/
>
>
> BR,
> Jani.
>
>
>>
>> Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_display.c | 11 ++++++-----
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_display.c
>> index 07898e0e175e..c783573585d7 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_display.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_display.c
>> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
>> #include <drm/xe_drm.h>
>>
>> #include "soc/intel_dram.h"
>> +#include "i915_drv.h"
>> #include "intel_acpi.h"
>> #include "intel_audio.h"
>> #include "intel_bw.h"
>> @@ -316,7 +317,7 @@ static void intel_suspend_encoders(struct xe_device *xe)
>> struct drm_device *dev = &xe->drm;
>> struct intel_encoder *encoder;
>>
>> - if (xe->info.display_runtime.pipe_mask)
>> + if (HAS_DISPLAY(xe))
>> return;
>>
>> drm_modeset_lock_all(dev);
>> @@ -346,7 +347,7 @@ void xe_display_pm_suspend(struct xe_device *xe)
>> * properly.
>> */
>> intel_power_domains_disable(xe);
>> - if (xe->info.display_runtime.pipe_mask)
>> + if (HAS_DISPLAY(xe))
>> drm_kms_helper_poll_disable(&xe->drm);
>>
>> intel_display_driver_suspend(xe);
>> @@ -392,7 +393,7 @@ void xe_display_pm_resume(struct xe_device *xe)
>>
>> intel_dmc_resume(xe);
>>
>> - if (xe->info.display_runtime.pipe_mask)
>> + if (HAS_DISPLAY(xe))
>> drm_mode_config_reset(&xe->drm);
>>
>> intel_display_driver_init_hw(xe);
>> @@ -403,7 +404,7 @@ void xe_display_pm_resume(struct xe_device *xe)
>> intel_display_driver_resume(xe);
>>
>> intel_hpd_poll_disable(xe);
>> - if (xe->info.display_runtime.pipe_mask)
>> + if (HAS_DISPLAY(xe))
>> drm_kms_helper_poll_enable(&xe->drm);
>>
>> intel_opregion_resume(xe);
>> @@ -424,7 +425,7 @@ void xe_display_probe(struct xe_device *xe)
>>
>> intel_display_device_probe(xe);
>>
>> - if (xe->info.display_runtime.pipe_mask)
>> + if (HAS_DISPLAY(xe))
>> return;
>>
>> no_display:
--
Jani Nikula, Intel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-10-03 14:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-10-03 8:58 [Intel-xe] [PATCH 1/3] fixup! drm/xe/display: Implement display support Jani Nikula
2023-10-03 8:58 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH 2/3] " Jani Nikula
2023-10-03 8:58 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH 3/3] " Jani Nikula
2023-10-03 13:15 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH 1/3] " Jani Nikula
2023-10-03 14:40 ` Jani Nikula [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2023-09-15 17:36 Maarten Lankhorst
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=87pm1vg46h.fsf@intel.com \
--to=jani.nikula@intel.com \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
/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.