From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
To: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-xe] [PATCH 1/3] fixup! drm/xe/display: Implement display support
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2023 17:40:22 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87pm1vg46h.fsf@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87ttr7g83k.fsf@intel.com>
On Tue, 03 Oct 2023, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Oct 2023, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> wrote:
>> We have an abstraction for "has display", and it's
>> HAS_DISPLAY(). Unfortunately, it requires access to
>> DISPLAY_RUNTIME_INFO(), so include compat-i915-headers/i915_drv.h too,
>> although it's a bit meh.
>>
>> Looking at this makes me think there's a bunch of confusion in:
>>
>> - the pipe_mask or now HAS_DISPLAY() checks
>> - the global enable_display checks
>> - the xe->info.enable_display checks
>> - redefinition of INTEL_DISPLAY_ENABLED()
>>
>> I really don't understand this, but it all looks very suspicious. This
>> change leaves all that in place, unmodified.
>
> To elaborate, this statement in xe_pci.c conflates three different
> concepts into one, and it just does not work like this:
>
> xe->info.enable_display = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DRM_XE_DISPLAY) &&
> enable_display &&
> desc->has_display;
>
> CONFIG_DRM_XE_DISPLAY describes whether display support has been built
> into the driver. CONFIG_DRM_XE_DISPLAY=n is fine if there is no display
> hardware. Otherwise, the display hardware will be left in whatever state
> the BIOS/GOP left it, e.g. consuming a bunch of power which is not
> desirable. (Even with CONFIG_DRM_XE_DISPLAY=n we might want to include
> enough display code to probe and warn about this scenario.)
>
> enable_display is a module parameter apparently intended to disable
> display dynamically. Similar to the above, if CONFIG_DRM_XE_DISPLAY=y
> but enable_display==false, the display hardware will be left in whatever
> state the BIOS/GOP left it. In i915, the module parameter is
> i915.disable_display, and it does run a bunch of display code to take
> over the hardware, put it to sleep, and keep all connectors
> disconnected. If you have display hardware, this is the sensible thing
> to do.
>
> desc->has_display means that we've probed the hardware and found it's
> not there, and we shouldn't touch it.
I've sent a series superseeding this one, and addressing some of the
issues listed above [1].
BR,
Jani.
[1] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/124561/
>
>
> BR,
> Jani.
>
>
>>
>> Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_display.c | 11 ++++++-----
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_display.c
>> index 07898e0e175e..c783573585d7 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_display.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_display.c
>> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
>> #include <drm/xe_drm.h>
>>
>> #include "soc/intel_dram.h"
>> +#include "i915_drv.h"
>> #include "intel_acpi.h"
>> #include "intel_audio.h"
>> #include "intel_bw.h"
>> @@ -316,7 +317,7 @@ static void intel_suspend_encoders(struct xe_device *xe)
>> struct drm_device *dev = &xe->drm;
>> struct intel_encoder *encoder;
>>
>> - if (xe->info.display_runtime.pipe_mask)
>> + if (HAS_DISPLAY(xe))
>> return;
>>
>> drm_modeset_lock_all(dev);
>> @@ -346,7 +347,7 @@ void xe_display_pm_suspend(struct xe_device *xe)
>> * properly.
>> */
>> intel_power_domains_disable(xe);
>> - if (xe->info.display_runtime.pipe_mask)
>> + if (HAS_DISPLAY(xe))
>> drm_kms_helper_poll_disable(&xe->drm);
>>
>> intel_display_driver_suspend(xe);
>> @@ -392,7 +393,7 @@ void xe_display_pm_resume(struct xe_device *xe)
>>
>> intel_dmc_resume(xe);
>>
>> - if (xe->info.display_runtime.pipe_mask)
>> + if (HAS_DISPLAY(xe))
>> drm_mode_config_reset(&xe->drm);
>>
>> intel_display_driver_init_hw(xe);
>> @@ -403,7 +404,7 @@ void xe_display_pm_resume(struct xe_device *xe)
>> intel_display_driver_resume(xe);
>>
>> intel_hpd_poll_disable(xe);
>> - if (xe->info.display_runtime.pipe_mask)
>> + if (HAS_DISPLAY(xe))
>> drm_kms_helper_poll_enable(&xe->drm);
>>
>> intel_opregion_resume(xe);
>> @@ -424,7 +425,7 @@ void xe_display_probe(struct xe_device *xe)
>>
>> intel_display_device_probe(xe);
>>
>> - if (xe->info.display_runtime.pipe_mask)
>> + if (HAS_DISPLAY(xe))
>> return;
>>
>> no_display:
--
Jani Nikula, Intel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-10-03 14:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-10-03 8:58 [Intel-xe] [PATCH 1/3] fixup! drm/xe/display: Implement display support Jani Nikula
2023-10-03 8:58 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH 2/3] " Jani Nikula
2023-10-03 8:58 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH 3/3] " Jani Nikula
2023-10-03 13:15 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH 1/3] " Jani Nikula
2023-10-03 14:40 ` Jani Nikula [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2023-09-15 17:36 Maarten Lankhorst
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=87pm1vg46h.fsf@intel.com \
--to=jani.nikula@intel.com \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=rodrigo.vivi@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