Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] drm/i915/psr: Begin to handle PSR/PSR2 errors set by sink

[Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan@intel.com>]

On Wed, 2018-06-13 at 20:02 +0000, Souza, Jose wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-06-13 at 13:17 -0700, Dhinakaran Pandiyan wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, 2018-06-05 at 22:45 +0000, Souza, Jose wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Tue, 2018-05-22 at 16:58 -0700, Dhinakaran Pandiyan wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Thu, 2018-05-17 at 15:21 -0700, José Roberto de Souza wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > eDP spec states that sink device will do a short pulse in HPD
> > > > > line when there is a PSR/PSR2 error that needs to be handled
> > > > > by
> > > > > source, this is handling the first and most simples error:
> > > > > DP_PSR_SINK_INTERNAL_ERROR.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Here taking the safest approach and disabling PSR(at least
> > > > > until
> > > > > the next modeset), to avoid multiple rendering issues due to
> > > > > bad pannels.
> > > > > 
> > > > > v3:
> > > > > disabling PSR instead of exiting on error
> > > > > 
> > > > > Cc: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan@intel.com>
> > > > > Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@intel.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c  |  2 ++
> > > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h |  1 +
> > > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c | 62
> > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > > > > --
> > > > > --
> > > > > --
> > > > >  3 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > > > > index b86da48fd38e..fa2851d4fb36 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > > > > @@ -4479,6 +4479,8 @@ intel_dp_short_pulse(struct intel_dp
> > > > > *intel_dp)
> > > > >  	if (intel_dp_needs_link_retrain(intel_dp))
> > > > >  		return false;
> > > > >  
> > > > > +	intel_psr_short_pulse(intel_dp);
> > > > > +
> > > > >  	if (intel_dp->compliance.test_type ==
> > > > > DP_TEST_LINK_TRAINING)
> > > > > {
> > > > >  		DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Link Training Compliance Test
> > > > > requested\n");
> > > > >  		/* Send a Hotplug Uevent to userspace to
> > > > > start
> > > > > modeset */
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> > > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> > > > > index 4508be628450..892da65358e9 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> > > > > @@ -1921,6 +1921,7 @@ void intel_psr_compute_config(struct
> > > > > intel_dp
> > > > > *intel_dp,
> > > > >  			      struct intel_crtc_state
> > > > > *crtc_state);
> > > > >  void intel_psr_irq_control(struct drm_i915_private
> > > > > *dev_priv,
> > > > > bool
> > > > > debug);
> > > > >  void intel_psr_irq_handler(struct drm_i915_private
> > > > > *dev_priv,
> > > > > u32
> > > > > psr_iir);
> > > > > +void intel_psr_short_pulse(struct intel_dp *intel_dp);
> > > > >  
> > > > >  /* intel_runtime_pm.c */
> > > > >  int intel_power_domains_init(struct drm_i915_private *);
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > > > > index d88799482875..60797c8f9f0e 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > > > > @@ -741,6 +741,23 @@ static void hsw_psr_disable(struct
> > > > > intel_dp
> > > > > *intel_dp)
> > > > >  	psr_aux_io_power_put(intel_dp);
> > > > >  }
> > > > >  
> > > > > +static void psr_disable(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> > nit: How about __psr_disable()? Might be worth checking other files
> > what the right convention is.
> It varies from file to file but inside of intel_psr.c we are not
> adding
>  "__" so better keep that, right?
Sure, either way is okay with me.



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