[PATCH v2] drm/i915: Use crtc_state->has_psr instead of CAN_PSR for pipe update

[PATCH v2] drm/i915: Use crtc_state->has_psr instead of CAN_PSR for pipe update

[Tarun Vyas]

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 avoids everything but pipe A, for the PSR IDLE check.

With this, the PSR IDLE check should be a *no-op* for all but pipe A
which is what was intended originally.

Fixes: a608987970b9 ("drm/i915: Wait for PSR exit before checking for
vblank evasion")

v2: Remove unnecessary parantheses, make checkpatch happy.

Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Tarun Vyas <tarun.vyas@intel.com>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
index 4990d6e84ddf..83880e3a5f3d 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 (new_crtc_state->has_psr && intel_psr_wait_for_idle(dev_priv))
 		DRM_ERROR("PSR idle timed out, atomic update may fail\n");
 
 	local_irq_disable();
-- 
2.13.5

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

✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915: Use crtc_state->has_psr instead of CAN_PSR for pipe update (rev2)

[Patchwork]

== Series Details ==

Series: drm/i915: Use crtc_state->has_psr instead of CAN_PSR for pipe update (rev2)
URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/46104/
State : success

== Summary ==

= CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_4451 -> Patchwork_9584 =

== Summary - SUCCESS ==

  No regressions found.

  External URL: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/46104/revisions/2/mbox/

== Known issues ==

  Here are the changes found in Patchwork_9584 that come from known issues:

  === IGT changes ===

    ==== Issues hit ====

    igt@kms_pipe_crc_basic@suspend-read-crc-pipe-c:
      fi-bxt-dsi:         PASS -> INCOMPLETE (fdo#103927)

    
    ==== Possible fixes ====

    igt@drv_module_reload@basic-reload:
      fi-kbl-7560u:       INCOMPLETE -> PASS

    
  fdo#103927 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103927


== Participating hosts (46 -> 39) ==

  Missing    (7): fi-ilk-m540 fi-hsw-4200u fi-hsw-peppy fi-byt-squawks fi-bsw-cyan fi-ctg-p8600 fi-kbl-8809g 


== Build changes ==

    * Linux: CI_DRM_4451 -> Patchwork_9584

  CI_DRM_4451: 7ae7763aa2be33d723ed891f0803f08a11f85633 @ git://anongit.freedesktop.org/gfx-ci/linux
  IGT_4543: 366eed37c7c71217e1cb1f3be5e26358a41f0001 @ git://anongit.freedesktop.org/xorg/app/intel-gpu-tools
  Patchwork_9584: 3a94a0cb8bc1f588f06279ad8c609bae48f1418f @ git://anongit.freedesktop.org/gfx-ci/linux


== Linux commits ==

3a94a0cb8bc1 drm/i915: Use crtc_state->has_psr instead of CAN_PSR for pipe update

== Logs ==

For more details see: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_9584/issues.html
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

✓ Fi.CI.IGT: success for drm/i915: Use crtc_state->has_psr instead of CAN_PSR for pipe update (rev2)

[Patchwork]

== Series Details ==

Series: drm/i915: Use crtc_state->has_psr instead of CAN_PSR for pipe update (rev2)
URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/46104/
State : success

== Summary ==

= CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_4451_full -> Patchwork_9584_full =

== Summary - WARNING ==

  Minor unknown changes coming with Patchwork_9584_full need to be verified
  manually.
  
  If you think the reported changes have nothing to do with the changes
  introduced in Patchwork_9584_full, please notify your bug team to allow them
  to document this new failure mode, which will reduce false positives in CI.

  

== Possible new issues ==

  Here are the unknown changes that may have been introduced in Patchwork_9584_full:

  === IGT changes ===

    ==== Warnings ====

    igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-bsd1:
      shard-kbl:          SKIP -> PASS +2

    
== Known issues ==

  Here are the changes found in Patchwork_9584_full that come from known issues:

  === IGT changes ===

    ==== Issues hit ====

    igt@gem_render_copy_redux@normal:
      shard-kbl:          PASS -> INCOMPLETE (fdo#106650, fdo#103665)

    igt@kms_flip_tiling@flip-x-tiled:
      shard-glk:          PASS -> FAIL (fdo#103822)

    
    ==== Possible fixes ====

    igt@drv_suspend@shrink:
      shard-snb:          INCOMPLETE (fdo#105411) -> PASS

    igt@kms_cursor_legacy@2x-nonblocking-modeset-vs-cursor-atomic:
      shard-glk:          FAIL (fdo#106509, fdo#105454) -> PASS

    igt@kms_setmode@basic:
      shard-apl:          FAIL (fdo#99912) -> PASS

    
  fdo#103665 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103665
  fdo#103822 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103822
  fdo#105411 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105411
  fdo#105454 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105454
  fdo#106509 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106509
  fdo#106650 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106650
  fdo#99912 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99912


== Participating hosts (5 -> 5) ==

  No changes in participating hosts


== Build changes ==

    * Linux: CI_DRM_4451 -> Patchwork_9584

  CI_DRM_4451: 7ae7763aa2be33d723ed891f0803f08a11f85633 @ git://anongit.freedesktop.org/gfx-ci/linux
  IGT_4543: 366eed37c7c71217e1cb1f3be5e26358a41f0001 @ git://anongit.freedesktop.org/xorg/app/intel-gpu-tools
  Patchwork_9584: 3a94a0cb8bc1f588f06279ad8c609bae48f1418f @ git://anongit.freedesktop.org/gfx-ci/linux
  piglit_4509: fdc5a4ca11124ab8413c7988896eec4c97336694 @ git://anongit.freedesktop.org/piglit

== Logs ==

For more details see: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_9584/shards.html
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [PATCH v2] drm/i915: Use crtc_state->has_psr instead of CAN_PSR for pipe update

[Tarun Vyas]

On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 11:30:00AM -0700, Dhinakaran Pandiyan wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-07-08 at 18:46 -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 avoids everything but pipe A, for the PSR IDLE check.
> > 
> > With this, the PSR IDLE check should be a *no-op* for all but pipe A
> > which is what was intended originally.
> > 
> 
> So, the problem is when we update a non-PSR pipe (B or C) and PSR is
> active on another pipe(A, specifically), we end up waiting for the pipe
> A MMIO to become idle.
> 
> Can you please update the commit message as the commit message makes
> the per-pipe check sound like an optimization? 
> 
> This also points to a gap in our testing, I don't see a two pipe PSR
> related IGT.
>
That's right. On my KBL chromebook that's running the drm-tip, when I plug-in an external display, so pipe B,
I see "[drm:intel_pipe_update_start] *ERROR* PSR idle timed out, atomic update may fail on pipe B", Iadded the pipe
name in the DRM_ERROR, may be I should make that change in the v3 of this patch along with updating the commit message.

But, yea, this proves that with the CAN_PSR check, the non-PSR pipes (B/C) wait on pipe-A to exit PSR which doesn't have
any reason to do so at that moment, hence the error.

I'll make the commit message changes and add the pipe name in the DRM_ERROR as well ?
> > Fixes: a608987970b9 ("drm/i915: Wait for PSR exit before checking for
> > vblank evasion")
> > 
> > v2: Remove unnecessary parantheses, make checkpatch happy.
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Tarun Vyas <tarun.vyas@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
> > index 4990d6e84ddf..83880e3a5f3d 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 (new_crtc_state->has_psr &&
> > intel_psr_wait_for_idle(dev_priv))
> >  		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

Re: [PATCH v2] drm/i915: Use crtc_state->has_psr instead of CAN_PSR for pipe update

[Dhinakaran Pandiyan]

On Sun, 2018-07-08 at 18:46 -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 avoids everything but pipe A, for the PSR IDLE check.
> 
> With this, the PSR IDLE check should be a *no-op* for all but pipe A
> which is what was intended originally.
> 

So, the problem is when we update a non-PSR pipe (B or C) and PSR is
active on another pipe(A, specifically), we end up waiting for the pipe
A MMIO to become idle.

Can you please update the commit message as the commit message makes
the per-pipe check sound like an optimization? 

This also points to a gap in our testing, I don't see a two pipe PSR
related IGT.

> Fixes: a608987970b9 ("drm/i915: Wait for PSR exit before checking for
> vblank evasion")
> 
> v2: Remove unnecessary parantheses, make checkpatch happy.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Tarun Vyas <tarun.vyas@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
> index 4990d6e84ddf..83880e3a5f3d 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 (new_crtc_state->has_psr &&
> intel_psr_wait_for_idle(dev_priv))
>  		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

Re: [PATCH v2] drm/i915: Use crtc_state->has_psr instead of CAN_PSR for pipe update

[Dhinakaran Pandiyan]

On Mon, 2018-07-09 at 11:16 -0700, Tarun Vyas wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 11:30:00AM -0700, Dhinakaran Pandiyan wrote:
> > 
> > On Sun, 2018-07-08 at 18:46 -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 avoids everything but pipe A, for the PSR IDLE check.
> > > 
> > > With this, the PSR IDLE check should be a *no-op* for all but
> > > pipe A
> > > which is what was intended originally.
> > > 
> > So, the problem is when we update a non-PSR pipe (B or C) and PSR
> > is
> > active on another pipe(A, specifically), we end up waiting for the
> > pipe
> > A MMIO to become idle.
> > 
> > Can you please update the commit message as the commit message
> > makes
> > the per-pipe check sound like an optimization? 
> > 
> > This also points to a gap in our testing, I don't see a two pipe
> > PSR
> > related IGT.
> > 
> That's right. On my KBL chromebook that's running the drm-tip, when I
> plug-in an external display, so pipe B,
> I see "[drm:intel_pipe_update_start] *ERROR* PSR idle timed out,
> atomic update may fail on pipe B", Iadded the pipe
> name in the DRM_ERROR, may be I should make that change in the v3 of
> this patch along with updating the commit message.
> 
> But, yea, this proves that with the CAN_PSR check, the non-PSR pipes
> (B/C) wait on pipe-A to exit PSR which doesn't have
> any reason to do so at that moment, hence the error.
> 
> I'll make the commit message changes and add the pipe name in the
> DRM_ERROR as well ?

I am thinking you could pass crtc_state to intel_psr_wait_for_idle()
and then check inside the implementation if the argument is the same as
the pipe PSR was enabled on and then wait.

intel_psr_wait_for_idle(crtc_state) {
	if (!CAN_PSR() || !crtc_state->has_psr)
		return;
	...
}

I don't like how intel_psr_wait_for_idle() doesn't care which pipe
(transcoder actually) MMIO it should wait on.
		

> > 
> > > 
> > > Fixes: a608987970b9 ("drm/i915: Wait for PSR exit before checking
> > > for
> > > vblank evasion")
> > > 
> > > v2: Remove unnecessary parantheses, make checkpatch happy.
> > > 
> > > Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Tarun Vyas <tarun.vyas@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
> > > index 4990d6e84ddf..83880e3a5f3d 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 (new_crtc_state->has_psr &&
> > > intel_psr_wait_for_idle(dev_priv))
> > >  		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
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [PATCH v2] drm/i915: Use crtc_state->has_psr instead of CAN_PSR for pipe update

[Rodrigo Vivi]

On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 11:30:00AM -0700, Dhinakaran Pandiyan wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-07-08 at 18:46 -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 avoids everything but pipe A, for the PSR IDLE check.
> > 
> > With this, the PSR IDLE check should be a *no-op* for all but pipe A
> > which is what was intended originally.
> > 
> 
> So, the problem is when we update a non-PSR pipe (B or C) and PSR is
> active on another pipe(A, specifically), we end up waiting for the pipe
> A MMIO to become idle.
> 
> Can you please update the commit message as the commit message makes
> the per-pipe check sound like an optimization? 

I truly doubt that multiple PSR pipes case doesn't work in our driver.
if that works I'd assume it is by coincidence :P

> This also points to a gap in our testing, I don't see a two pipe PSR
> related IGT.

The almost impossible mission here is to find any design with 2 eDP
connectors and both panels with PSR.

> 
> > Fixes: a608987970b9 ("drm/i915: Wait for PSR exit before checking for
> > vblank evasion")
> > 
> > v2: Remove unnecessary parantheses, make checkpatch happy.
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Tarun Vyas <tarun.vyas@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
> > index 4990d6e84ddf..83880e3a5f3d 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 (new_crtc_state->has_psr &&
> > intel_psr_wait_for_idle(dev_priv))
> >  		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

Re: [PATCH v2] drm/i915: Use crtc_state->has_psr instead of CAN_PSR for pipe update

[Rodrigo Vivi]

On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 12:58:28PM -0700, Dhinakaran Pandiyan wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-07-09 at 12:24 -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 11:30:00AM -0700, Dhinakaran Pandiyan wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Sun, 2018-07-08 at 18:46 -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 avoids everything but pipe A, for the PSR IDLE check.
> > > > 
> > > > With this, the PSR IDLE check should be a *no-op* for all but
> > > > pipe A
> > > > which is what was intended originally.
> > > > 
> > > So, the problem is when we update a non-PSR pipe (B or C) and PSR
> > > is
> > > active on another pipe(A, specifically), we end up waiting for the
> > > pipe
> > > A MMIO to become idle.
> > > 
> > > Can you please update the commit message as the commit message
> > > makes
> > > the per-pipe check sound like an optimization? 
> > I truly doubt that multiple PSR pipes case doesn't work in our
> > driver.
> > if that works I'd assume it is by coincidence :P
> > 
> > > 
> > > This also points to a gap in our testing, I don't see a two pipe
> > > PSR
> > > related IGT.
> > The almost impossible mission here is to find any design with 2 eDP
> > connectors and both panels with PSR.
> > 
> I meant, two pipes with PSR on one of them. I looked at the frontbuffer
> _tracking@psr subtests in https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmt
> ip.html, none of them were "2p". Ideally, a pipe update on a non-PSR
> pipe would have triggered this failure in CI.

oh I see... you are right...

> 
> 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Fixes: a608987970b9 ("drm/i915: Wait for PSR exit before checking
> > > > for
> > > > vblank evasion")
> > > > 
> > > > v2: Remove unnecessary parantheses, make checkpatch happy.
> > > > 
> > > > Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>

I take it back, sorry ;)

> > > > Signed-off-by: Tarun Vyas <tarun.vyas@intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c | 2 +-
> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
> > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
> > > > index 4990d6e84ddf..83880e3a5f3d 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 (new_crtc_state->has_psr &&
> > > > intel_psr_wait_for_idle(dev_priv))
> > > >  		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

Re: [PATCH v2] drm/i915: Use crtc_state->has_psr instead of CAN_PSR for pipe update

[Tarun Vyas]

On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 11:58:52AM -0700, Dhinakaran Pandiyan wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-07-09 at 11:16 -0700, Tarun Vyas wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 11:30:00AM -0700, Dhinakaran Pandiyan wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Sun, 2018-07-08 at 18:46 -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 avoids everything but pipe A, for the PSR IDLE check.
> > > > 
> > > > With this, the PSR IDLE check should be a *no-op* for all but
> > > > pipe A
> > > > which is what was intended originally.
> > > > 
> > > So, the problem is when we update a non-PSR pipe (B or C) and PSR
> > > is
> > > active on another pipe(A, specifically), we end up waiting for the
> > > pipe
> > > A MMIO to become idle.
> > > 
> > > Can you please update the commit message as the commit message
> > > makes
> > > the per-pipe check sound like an optimization? 
> > > 
> > > This also points to a gap in our testing, I don't see a two pipe
> > > PSR
> > > related IGT.
> > > 
> > That's right. On my KBL chromebook that's running the drm-tip, when I
> > plug-in an external display, so pipe B,
> > I see "[drm:intel_pipe_update_start] *ERROR* PSR idle timed out,
> > atomic update may fail on pipe B", Iadded the pipe
> > name in the DRM_ERROR, may be I should make that change in the v3 of
> > this patch along with updating the commit message.
> > 
> > But, yea, this proves that with the CAN_PSR check, the non-PSR pipes
> > (B/C) wait on pipe-A to exit PSR which doesn't have
> > any reason to do so at that moment, hence the error.
> > 
> > I'll make the commit message changes and add the pipe name in the
> > DRM_ERROR as well ?
> 
> I am thinking you could pass crtc_state to intel_psr_wait_for_idle()
> and then check inside the implementation if the argument is the same as
> the pipe PSR was enabled on and then wait.
> 
> intel_psr_wait_for_idle(crtc_state) {
> 	if (!CAN_PSR() || !crtc_state->has_psr)
> 		return;
> 	...
> }
Hmm, but the CAN_PSR check is already taken care of by intel_psr_compute_config() which then sets has_psr, so just
	if (!crtc_state->has_psr)
		return;
should suffice, right ?

But then, we incur a function call for non-PSR pipes, which will return right away.
> 
> I don't like how intel_psr_wait_for_idle() doesn't care which pipe
> (transcoder actually) MMIO it should wait on.
> 		
> 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Fixes: a608987970b9 ("drm/i915: Wait for PSR exit before checking
> > > > for
> > > > vblank evasion")
> > > > 
> > > > v2: Remove unnecessary parantheses, make checkpatch happy.
> > > > 
> > > > Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Tarun Vyas <tarun.vyas@intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c | 2 +-
> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
> > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
> > > > index 4990d6e84ddf..83880e3a5f3d 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 (new_crtc_state->has_psr &&
> > > > intel_psr_wait_for_idle(dev_priv))
> > > >  		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
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [PATCH v2] drm/i915: Use crtc_state->has_psr instead of CAN_PSR for pipe update

[Dhinakaran Pandiyan]

On Mon, 2018-07-09 at 12:24 -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 11:30:00AM -0700, Dhinakaran Pandiyan wrote:
> > 
> > On Sun, 2018-07-08 at 18:46 -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 avoids everything but pipe A, for the PSR IDLE check.
> > > 
> > > With this, the PSR IDLE check should be a *no-op* for all but
> > > pipe A
> > > which is what was intended originally.
> > > 
> > So, the problem is when we update a non-PSR pipe (B or C) and PSR
> > is
> > active on another pipe(A, specifically), we end up waiting for the
> > pipe
> > A MMIO to become idle.
> > 
> > Can you please update the commit message as the commit message
> > makes
> > the per-pipe check sound like an optimization? 
> I truly doubt that multiple PSR pipes case doesn't work in our
> driver.
> if that works I'd assume it is by coincidence :P
> 
> > 
> > This also points to a gap in our testing, I don't see a two pipe
> > PSR
> > related IGT.
> The almost impossible mission here is to find any design with 2 eDP
> connectors and both panels with PSR.
> 
I meant, two pipes with PSR on one of them. I looked at the frontbuffer
_tracking@psr subtests in https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmt
ip.html, none of them were "2p". Ideally, a pipe update on a non-PSR
pipe would have triggered this failure in CI.


> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Fixes: a608987970b9 ("drm/i915: Wait for PSR exit before checking
> > > for
> > > vblank evasion")
> > > 
> > > v2: Remove unnecessary parantheses, make checkpatch happy.
> > > 
> > > Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Tarun Vyas <tarun.vyas@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
> > > index 4990d6e84ddf..83880e3a5f3d 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 (new_crtc_state->has_psr &&
> > > intel_psr_wait_for_idle(dev_priv))
> > >  		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

Re: [PATCH v2] drm/i915: Use crtc_state->has_psr instead of CAN_PSR for pipe update

[Tarun Vyas]

On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 01:31:52PM -0700, Dhinakaran Pandiyan wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-07-09 at 12:52 -0700, Tarun Vyas wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 11:58:52AM -0700, Dhinakaran Pandiyan wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 2018-07-09 at 11:16 -0700, Tarun Vyas wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 11:30:00AM -0700, Dhinakaran Pandiyan
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Sun, 2018-07-08 at 18:46 -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 avoids everything but pipe A, for the PSR IDLE
> > > > > > check.
> 
> I looked at the code and spec again, PSR isn't tied to "pipe A" The
> driver allows PSR only on "port A" + "transcoder eDP", but the pipe
> itself can be any one of the possible options.
>
I'll remove the pipe A part from the message and specify that at the moment we assume port A + eDP, b/c at least in the code we populate the registers with EDP_PSR base directly. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > With this, the PSR IDLE check should be a *no-op* for all but
> > > > > > pipe A
> > > > > > which is what was intended originally.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > So, the problem is when we update a non-PSR pipe (B or C) and
> > > > > PSR
> > > > > is
> > > > > active on another pipe(A, specifically), we end up waiting for
> > > > > the
> > > > > pipe
> > > > > A MMIO to become idle.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Can you please update the commit message as the commit message
> > > > > makes
> > > > > the per-pipe check sound like an optimization? 
> > > > > 
> > > > > This also points to a gap in our testing, I don't see a two
> > > > > pipe
> > > > > PSR
> > > > > related IGT.
> > > > > 
> > > > That's right. On my KBL chromebook that's running the drm-tip,
> > > > when I
> > > > plug-in an external display, so pipe B,
> > > > I see "[drm:intel_pipe_update_start] *ERROR* PSR idle timed out,
> > > > atomic update may fail on pipe B", Iadded the pipe
> > > > name in the DRM_ERROR, may be I should make that change in the v3
> > > > of
> > > > this patch along with updating the commit message.
> > > > 
> > > > But, yea, this proves that with the CAN_PSR check, the non-PSR
> > > > pipes
> > > > (B/C) wait on pipe-A to exit PSR which doesn't have
> > > > any reason to do so at that moment, hence the error.
> > > > 
> > > > I'll make the commit message changes and add the pipe name in the
> > > > DRM_ERROR as well ?
> > > I am thinking you could pass crtc_state
> > > to intel_psr_wait_for_idle()
> > > and then check inside the implementation if the argument is the
> > > same as
> > > the pipe PSR was enabled on and then wait.
> > > 
> > > intel_psr_wait_for_idle(crtc_state) {
> > > 	if (!CAN_PSR() || !crtc_state->has_psr)
> > > 		return;
> > > 	...
> > > }
> > Hmm, but the CAN_PSR check is already taken care of by
> > intel_psr_compute_config() which then sets has_psr, so just
> > 	if (!crtc_state->has_psr)
> > 		return;
> > should suffice, right ?
> > 
> Yeah, we can assume at this point state->has_psr is set correctly.
> 
> > But then, we incur a function call for non-PSR pipes, which will
> > return right away.
> 
> That should be okay, having the PSR related check inside the function
> looks cleaner IMO. 
Sounds good.
> 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I don't like how intel_psr_wait_for_idle() doesn't care which pipe
> > > (transcoder actually) MMIO it should wait on.
> > > 		
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Fixes: a608987970b9 ("drm/i915: Wait for PSR exit before
> > > > > > checking
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > vblank evasion")
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > v2: Remove unnecessary parantheses, make checkpatch happy.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tarun Vyas <tarun.vyas@intel.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c | 2 +-
> > > > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
> > > > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
> > > > > > index 4990d6e84ddf..83880e3a5f3d 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 (new_crtc_state->has_psr &&
> > > > > > intel_psr_wait_for_idle(dev_priv))
> > > > > >  		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
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [PATCH v2] drm/i915: Use crtc_state->has_psr instead of CAN_PSR for pipe update

[Dhinakaran Pandiyan]

On Mon, 2018-07-09 at 12:52 -0700, Tarun Vyas wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 11:58:52AM -0700, Dhinakaran Pandiyan wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, 2018-07-09 at 11:16 -0700, Tarun Vyas wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 11:30:00AM -0700, Dhinakaran Pandiyan
> > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Sun, 2018-07-08 at 18:46 -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 avoids everything but pipe A, for the PSR IDLE
> > > > > check.

I looked at the code and spec again, PSR isn't tied to "pipe A" The
driver allows PSR only on "port A" + "transcoder eDP", but the pipe
itself can be any one of the possible options.

> > > > > 
> > > > > With this, the PSR IDLE check should be a *no-op* for all but
> > > > > pipe A
> > > > > which is what was intended originally.
> > > > > 
> > > > So, the problem is when we update a non-PSR pipe (B or C) and
> > > > PSR
> > > > is
> > > > active on another pipe(A, specifically), we end up waiting for
> > > > the
> > > > pipe
> > > > A MMIO to become idle.
> > > > 
> > > > Can you please update the commit message as the commit message
> > > > makes
> > > > the per-pipe check sound like an optimization? 
> > > > 
> > > > This also points to a gap in our testing, I don't see a two
> > > > pipe
> > > > PSR
> > > > related IGT.
> > > > 
> > > That's right. On my KBL chromebook that's running the drm-tip,
> > > when I
> > > plug-in an external display, so pipe B,
> > > I see "[drm:intel_pipe_update_start] *ERROR* PSR idle timed out,
> > > atomic update may fail on pipe B", Iadded the pipe
> > > name in the DRM_ERROR, may be I should make that change in the v3
> > > of
> > > this patch along with updating the commit message.
> > > 
> > > But, yea, this proves that with the CAN_PSR check, the non-PSR
> > > pipes
> > > (B/C) wait on pipe-A to exit PSR which doesn't have
> > > any reason to do so at that moment, hence the error.
> > > 
> > > I'll make the commit message changes and add the pipe name in the
> > > DRM_ERROR as well ?
> > I am thinking you could pass crtc_state
> > to intel_psr_wait_for_idle()
> > and then check inside the implementation if the argument is the
> > same as
> > the pipe PSR was enabled on and then wait.
> > 
> > intel_psr_wait_for_idle(crtc_state) {
> > 	if (!CAN_PSR() || !crtc_state->has_psr)
> > 		return;
> > 	...
> > }
> Hmm, but the CAN_PSR check is already taken care of by
> intel_psr_compute_config() which then sets has_psr, so just
> 	if (!crtc_state->has_psr)
> 		return;
> should suffice, right ?
> 
Yeah, we can assume at this point state->has_psr is set correctly.

> But then, we incur a function call for non-PSR pipes, which will
> return right away.

That should be okay, having the PSR related check inside the function
looks cleaner IMO. 

> > 
> > 
> > I don't like how intel_psr_wait_for_idle() doesn't care which pipe
> > (transcoder actually) MMIO it should wait on.
> > 		
> > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Fixes: a608987970b9 ("drm/i915: Wait for PSR exit before
> > > > > checking
> > > > > for
> > > > > vblank evasion")
> > > > > 
> > > > > v2: Remove unnecessary parantheses, make checkpatch happy.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Tarun Vyas <tarun.vyas@intel.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c | 2 +-
> > > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
> > > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
> > > > > index 4990d6e84ddf..83880e3a5f3d 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 (new_crtc_state->has_psr &&
> > > > > intel_psr_wait_for_idle(dev_priv))
> > > > >  		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
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx