Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/atomic: Allow vblank-enabled + self-refresh "disable"

[Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>]

On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 09:30:56PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 11:33:06AM -0800, Brian Norris wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 07:17:53PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > - check that drivers which use self_refresh are not using
> > >   drm_atomic_helper_wait_for_vblanks(), because that would defeat the
> > >   point
> > 
> > I'm a bit lost on this one. drm_atomic_helper_wait_for_vblanks() is part
> > of the common drm_atomic_helper_commit_tail*() helpers, and so it's
> > naturally used in many cases (including Rockchip/PSR). And how does it
> > defeat the point?
> 
> Yeah, but that's for backwards compat reasons, the much better function is
> drm_atomic_helper_wait_for_flip_done(). And if you go into self refresh
> that's really the better one.

My knowledge is certainly going to diminish once you talk about
backwards compat for drivers I'm very unfamiliar with. Are you
suggesting I can change the default
drm_atomic_helper_commit_tail{,_rpm}() to use
drm_atomic_helper_wait_for_flip_done()? (Or, just when
self_refresh_active==true?) I can try to read through drivers for
compatibility, but I may be prone to breaking things.

Otherwise, I'd be copy/paste/modifying the generic commit helpers.

> > > - have a drm_crtc_vblank_off/on which take the crtc state, so they can
> > >   look at the self-refresh state
> > 
> > And I suppose you mean this helper variant would kick off the next step
> > (fake vblank timer)?
> 
> Yeah, I figured that's the better way to implement this since it would be
> driver agnostic. But rockchip is still the only driver using the
> self-refresh helpers, so I guess it doesn't really matter.

I've run into enough gotchas with these helpers that I feel like it
might be difficult to ever get a second driver using this. Or at least,
we'd have to learn what requirements they have when we get there. (Well,
maybe you know better, but I certainly don't.)

I'm tempted to just go with what's the simplest for Rockchip now, and
look at some generic timer fallbacks later if the need arises.

> > Also, I still haven't found that fake timer machinery, but maybe I just
> > don't know what I'm looking for.
> 
> I ... didn't find it either. I'm honestly not sure whether this works for
> intel, or whether we do something silly like disable self-refresh when a
> vblank interrupt is pending :-/

Nice to know I'm not the only one, I suppose :)

> I think new proposal from me is to just respin this patch here with our
> discussion all summarized (it's good to record this stuff for the next
> person that comes around), and the WARN_ON adjusted so it also checks that
> vblank interrupts keep working (per the ret value at least, it's not a
> real functional check). And call that good enough.

Sounds good. I'll try to summarize without immortalizing too much of my
ignorance ;)

And thanks for your thoughts.

> Also maybe look into switching from wait_for_vblanks to
> wait_for_flip_done, it's the right thing to do (see kerneldoc, it should
> explain things a bit).

I've read some, and will probably reread a few more times. And I left
one question above.

Brian

_______________________________________________
Linux-rockchip mailing list
Linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip