From: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan@intel.com>
To: Tarun Vyas <tarun.vyas@intel.com>, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: rodrigo.vivi@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] drm/i915: Use crtc_state->has_psr instead of CAN_PSR for pipe update
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 22:44:36 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1531374276.7606.13.camel@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180710003923.5775-1-tarun.vyas@intel.com>
On Mon, 2018-07-09 at 17:39 -0700, Tarun Vyas wrote:
> In commit "drm/i915: Wait for PSR exit before checking for vblank
> evasion", the idea was to limit the PSR IDLE checks when PSR is
> actually supported. While CAN_PSR does do that check, it doesn't
> applies on a per-crtc basis. crtc_state->has_psr is a more granular
> check that only applies to pipe(s) that have PSR enabled.
>
> Currently, the driver supports PSR on port A + transcoder eDP, so
> only pipe A will wait for PSR to go IDLE, as it should, and other
> pipes should return immediately.
This still doesn't read right to me. Sorry for being pedantic,
documenting the hardware behaviour, especially when it comes to PSR is
important.
> Without the has_psr check, non-PSR pipe_updates (pipe B/C in this
> case), end up waiting on PSR pipe (pipe A in this case) to exit PSR,
> which may incur substantial delays for non-PSR pipe updates alongwith
> the fact the it doesn't makes any sense.
How about just saying "Without the crtc_state->has_psr check, we end up
waiting on the eDP transcoder's PSR_STATUS register irrespective of
whether the pipe being updated is driving it or not".
With the commit message altered, feel free to add
Reviewed-by: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan@intel.com>
>
> Fixes: a608987970b9 ("drm/i915: Wait for PSR exit before checking for
> vblank evasion")
>
> v2: Remove unnecessary parantheses, make checkpatch happy.
>
> v3: Move the has_psr check to intel_psr_wait_for_idle and commit
> message changes (DK).
>
> v4: Derive dev_priv from intel_crtc_state (DK)
> Signed-off-by: Tarun Vyas <tarun.vyas@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h | 2 +-
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c | 7 ++++++-
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c | 2 +-
> 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> index 61e715ddd0d5..699073fbecb1 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> @@ -1923,7 +1923,7 @@ void intel_psr_compute_config(struct intel_dp
> *intel_dp,
> 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);
> -int intel_psr_wait_for_idle(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
> +int intel_psr_wait_for_idle(const struct intel_crtc_state
> *new_crtc_state);
>
> /* 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 23acc9ac8d4d..e97db5dd75b1 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> @@ -717,11 +717,16 @@ void intel_psr_disable(struct intel_dp
> *intel_dp,
> cancel_work_sync(&dev_priv->psr.work);
> }
>
> -int intel_psr_wait_for_idle(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> +int intel_psr_wait_for_idle(const struct intel_crtc_state
> *new_crtc_state)
> {
> + struct intel_crtc *crtc = to_intel_crtc(new_crtc_state-
> >base.crtc);
> + struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(crtc->base.dev);
> i915_reg_t reg;
> u32 mask;
>
> + if (!new_crtc_state->has_psr)
> + return 0;
> +
> /*
> * The sole user right now is intel_pipe_update_start(),
> * which won't race with psr_enable/disable, which is
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
> index 4990d6e84ddf..9d6d1ac149da 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
> @@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ void intel_pipe_update_start(const struct
> intel_crtc_state *new_crtc_state)
> * VBL interrupts will start the PSR exit and prevent a PSR
> * re-entry as well.
> */
> - if (CAN_PSR(dev_priv) && intel_psr_wait_for_idle(dev_priv))
> + if (intel_psr_wait_for_idle(new_crtc_state))
> DRM_ERROR("PSR idle timed out, atomic update may
> fail\n");
>
> local_irq_disable();
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-07-12 5:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-07-10 0:39 [PATCH v4] drm/i915: Use crtc_state->has_psr instead of CAN_PSR for pipe update Tarun Vyas
2018-07-10 1:12 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915: Use crtc_state->has_psr instead of CAN_PSR for pipe update (rev4) Patchwork
2018-07-10 10:22 ` ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: " Patchwork
2018-07-12 5:44 ` Dhinakaran Pandiyan [this message]
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=1531374276.7606.13.camel@intel.com \
--to=dhinakaran.pandiyan@intel.com \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
--cc=tarun.vyas@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).