From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (gabe.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CDC40EB64D9 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2023 08:24:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 574D910E472; Thu, 6 Jul 2023 08:24:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mga12.intel.com (mga12.intel.com [192.55.52.136]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2E0710E472 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2023 08:24:33 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1688631873; x=1720167873; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=0uWBRoS4PjPB3LSf5LkZtH9ZhhYAQLeyGxbACv+Q2+g=; b=JteYMS1o0/QsLvzD3OWGG9cU8KO/inSe+935pcAgTktJAEOUvUaZ3EIo Nr95AehaPepcoQbWv5SANAjoYxI5/9j7X0Y1VgO6bmohkcZQ65WIWTFT5 IyNIEpuqDmQrDR16wxgYVzT610LKp+v7UPqBU51KfegO6TW3qMzoPhtm1 e6ZVAhl6y4t/1ezxsjP+6nRA/dSk6Qp0x9hzBAe345VnemLoepWt+gUx7 WjnsXm5QEXDKNEPMmn4Jzw7NaD0rHwKxoKzcSozFPoX5mvjv7dK1Azw79 1daJhQN9V68btHHLHcS49FgWloubsuDQvROYGmkrMsLWdNgcFNAtH6DlX A==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10762"; a="343132458" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.01,185,1684825200"; d="scan'208";a="343132458" Received: from orsmga008.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.65]) by fmsmga106.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Jul 2023 01:24:32 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10762"; a="749061660" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.01,185,1684825200"; d="scan'208";a="749061660" Received: from unknown (HELO intel.com) ([10.237.72.65]) by orsmga008-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Jul 2023 01:24:30 -0700 Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2023 11:24:21 +0300 From: "Lisovskiy, Stanislav" To: Imre Deak Message-ID: References: <20230525101036.21564-1-stanislav.lisovskiy@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Fix the disabling sequence for Bigjoiner X-BeenThere: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Intel graphics driver community testing & development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: jani.nikula@intel.com, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-gfx" On Wed, Jul 05, 2023 at 06:32:51PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 01:10:36PM +0300, Stanislav Lisovskiy wrote: > > According to BSpec 49190, when enabling crtcs, we first setup > > slave and then master crtc, however for disabling it should go > > vice versa, i.e first master, then slave, however current code > > does disabling in a same way as enabling. Fix this, by skipping > > non-master crtcs, instead of non-slaves. > > > > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Lisovskiy > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c > > index 0490c6412ab5..68958ba0ef49 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c > > @@ -6662,7 +6662,7 @@ static void intel_commit_modeset_disables(struct intel_atomic_state *state) > > */ > > if (!is_trans_port_sync_slave(old_crtc_state) && > > !intel_dp_mst_is_slave_trans(old_crtc_state) && > > - !intel_crtc_is_bigjoiner_slave(old_crtc_state)) > > + !intel_crtc_is_bigjoiner_master(old_crtc_state)) > > I don't see what does this fix. The sequence is correct at the moment > and this change would break it, leaving the encoder PLL enabled > incorrectly when the encoder->post_pll_disable() hook is called. Hence > it's NAK from side. Well, as I pointed out the BSpec 49190 instructs us to disable master first, then slave. Current code skips all non-slaves in first cycle, i.e it disables first slaves and then masters. Which is _wrong_. Anything else in particular, where do you need clarifications? Stan > > > continue; > > > > intel_old_crtc_state_disables(state, old_crtc_state, > > -- > > 2.37.3 > >