From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
To: imre.deak@intel.com
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org,
Imre Deak <imre.deak@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/20] drm/i915/dp: Reprobe connector if getting/acking device IRQs fails
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2025 13:23:12 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9ef664aa1e833ee6c3f97533da4a0d828a03f9f2@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aF0UbRD7DLIwZRYe@ideak-desk>
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025, Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 12:12:11PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2025, Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com> wrote:
>> > From: Imre Deak <imre.deak@gmail.com>
>> >
>> > An AUX access failure during HPD IRQ handling should be handled by
>> > falling back to a full connector detection, ensure that if the failure
>> > happens while reading/acking a device service IRQ.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak@gmail.com>
>> > ---
>> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c | 21 +++++++++++++++------
>> > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c
>> > index 7793a72983abd..7eb208d2c321b 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c
>> > @@ -5393,16 +5393,20 @@ void intel_dp_check_link_state(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
>> > intel_encoder_link_check_queue_work(encoder, 0);
>> > }
>> >
>> > -static void intel_dp_check_device_service_irq(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
>> > +static bool intel_dp_check_device_service_irq(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
>>
>> I don't think "check" is very intuitive in function names. Check
>> something, but then what? Is it like an assert or does it do something
>> active or what?
>>
>> What does a boolean return from a check function mean?
>>
>> It's not obvious to the reader at all.
>
> I agree, but in this patch I didn't want to change the function name.
Arguably adding a return value changes the meaning already...
>
>>
>> > {
>> > struct intel_display *display = to_intel_display(intel_dp);
>> > u8 val;
>> >
>> > if (drm_dp_dpcd_readb(&intel_dp->aux,
>> > - DP_DEVICE_SERVICE_IRQ_VECTOR, &val) != 1 || !val)
>> > - return;
>> > + DP_DEVICE_SERVICE_IRQ_VECTOR, &val) != 1)
>> > + return true;
>>
>> Looks like true means the check failed... while usually true for boolean
>> functions means success.
>
> The function returns true as before if a full connector detection is needed.
But it didn't return anything before! And that meaning is not conveyed
to the reader in *any* reasonable way!
The absolute minimum is to add a comment (mind you, kernel-doc is
overkill) stating what the return value means.
>
>>
>> >
>> > - drm_dp_dpcd_writeb(&intel_dp->aux, DP_DEVICE_SERVICE_IRQ_VECTOR, val);
>> > + if (!val)
>> > + return false;
>> > +
>> > + if (drm_dp_dpcd_writeb(&intel_dp->aux, DP_DEVICE_SERVICE_IRQ_VECTOR, val) != 1)
>> > + return true;
>> >
>> > if (val & DP_AUTOMATED_TEST_REQUEST)
>> > intel_dp_test_request(intel_dp);
>>
>> Whoa, it's not a *check* function at all?! It actually *handles* the
>> service irqs.
>>
>> Can we rephrase the function name?
>
> I want to keep the function name in this patch. In the following patches
> I will separate this part and rename it to
> intel_dp_get_and_ack_device_service_irq().
Right, saw that now. But even for that function name the meaning of the
return value is ambiguous.
BR,
Jani.
>
>
>> int intel_dp_handle_device_service_irq() and int returns maybe?
>> BR,
>> Jani.
>>
>> > @@ -5412,6 +5416,8 @@ static void intel_dp_check_device_service_irq(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
>> >
>> > if (val & DP_SINK_SPECIFIC_IRQ)
>> > drm_dbg_kms(display->drm, "Sink specific irq unhandled\n");
>> > +
>> > + return false;
>> > }
>> >
>> > static bool intel_dp_check_link_service_irq(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
>> > @@ -5476,8 +5482,11 @@ intel_dp_short_pulse(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
>> > /* No need to proceed if we are going to do full detect */
>> > return false;
>> >
>> > - intel_dp_check_device_service_irq(intel_dp);
>> > - reprobe_needed = intel_dp_check_link_service_irq(intel_dp);
>> > + if (intel_dp_check_device_service_irq(intel_dp))
>> > + reprobe_needed = true;
>> > +
>> > + if (intel_dp_check_link_service_irq(intel_dp))
>> > + reprobe_needed = true;
>> >
>> > /* Handle CEC interrupts, if any */
>> > drm_dp_cec_irq(&intel_dp->aux);
>>
>> --
>> Jani Nikula, Intel
--
Jani Nikula, Intel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-26 10:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 64+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-06-26 8:20 [PATCH 00/20] drm/i915/dp: Fix few SST HPD IRQ handling issues Imre Deak
2025-06-26 8:20 ` [PATCH 01/20] drm/i915/dp_mst: Reprobe connector if the IRQ ESI read failed Imre Deak
2025-06-27 7:42 ` Luca Coelho
2025-06-26 8:20 ` [PATCH 02/20] drm/i915/dp_mst: Verify the link status always the same way Imre Deak
2025-06-26 8:31 ` Jani Nikula
2025-06-27 15:19 ` Imre Deak
2025-07-03 11:14 ` Luca Coelho
2025-06-26 8:20 ` [PATCH 03/20] drm/i915/dp_mst: Reuse intel_dp_check_link_state() in the HPD IRQ handler Imre Deak
2025-07-01 7:50 ` Luca Coelho
2025-06-26 8:20 ` [PATCH 04/20] drm/i915/dp: Handle a tunneling IRQ after acking it Imre Deak
2025-07-01 8:02 ` Luca Coelho
2025-07-01 8:32 ` Imre Deak
2025-07-01 8:47 ` Luca Coelho
2025-06-26 8:20 ` [PATCH 05/20] drm/i915/dp: Handle the RX_CAP_CHANGED HPD IRQ Imre Deak
2025-07-01 8:03 ` Luca Coelho
2025-07-01 10:30 ` Imre Deak
2025-07-03 11:16 ` Luca Coelho
2025-06-26 8:20 ` [PATCH 06/20] drm/i915/dp: Handle the DOWNSTREAM_PORT_STATUS_CHANGED event Imre Deak
2025-07-01 8:52 ` Luca Coelho
2025-06-26 8:20 ` [PATCH 07/20] drm/i915/dp: Don't clobber the encoder state in the HPD IRQ handler Imre Deak
2025-07-01 8:56 ` Luca Coelho
2025-06-26 8:20 ` [PATCH 08/20] drm/i915/dp: Remove the device service IRQ handling from connector detect Imre Deak
2025-07-01 9:00 ` Luca Coelho
2025-06-26 8:20 ` [PATCH 09/20] drm/i915/dp: Fix the device service IRQ DPCD_REV check Imre Deak
2025-07-01 9:01 ` Luca Coelho
2025-06-26 8:20 ` [PATCH 10/20] drm/i915/dp: Fix the link " Imre Deak
2025-07-01 9:12 ` Luca Coelho
2025-06-26 8:20 ` [PATCH 11/20] drm/i915/dp: Reprobe connector if getting/acking device IRQs fails Imre Deak
2025-06-26 9:12 ` Jani Nikula
2025-06-26 9:35 ` Imre Deak
2025-06-26 10:23 ` Jani Nikula [this message]
2025-06-26 10:43 ` Imre Deak
2025-06-26 10:46 ` Jani Nikula
2025-06-26 10:56 ` Imre Deak
2025-07-03 11:28 ` Luca Coelho
2025-07-03 11:43 ` Imre Deak
2025-07-07 10:05 ` Luca Coelho
2025-06-26 8:20 ` [PATCH 12/20] drm/i915/dp: Reprobe connector if getting/acking link service " Imre Deak
2025-07-03 11:37 ` Luca Coelho
2025-06-26 8:20 ` [PATCH 13/20] drm/i915/dp: Return early if getting/acking device " Imre Deak
2025-07-03 11:59 ` Luca Coelho
2025-06-26 8:20 ` [PATCH 14/20] drm/i915/dp: Return early if getting/ackink link " Imre Deak
2025-07-03 12:29 ` Luca Coelho
2025-06-26 8:20 ` [PATCH 15/20] drm/i915/dp: Read/ack sink count and sink IRQs for SST as it's done for MST Imre Deak
2025-07-03 13:02 ` Luca Coelho
2025-07-03 13:14 ` Imre Deak
2025-07-03 13:24 ` Luca Coelho
2025-06-26 8:20 ` [PATCH 16/20] drm/i915/dp: Print debug message for a sink connected off request Imre Deak
2025-07-03 13:03 ` Luca Coelho
2025-06-26 8:20 ` [PATCH 17/20] drm/i915/dp: Check SST link status while handling link service IRQs Imre Deak
2025-07-03 13:05 ` Luca Coelho
2025-06-26 8:20 ` [PATCH 18/20] drm/i915/dp_mst: Reuse intel_dp_handle_link_service_irq() Imre Deak
2025-07-03 13:07 ` Luca Coelho
2025-06-26 8:20 ` [PATCH 19/20] drm/i915/dp: Ack only the handled device service IRQs Imre Deak
2025-07-03 13:14 ` Luca Coelho
2025-07-03 13:18 ` Imre Deak
2025-07-03 13:27 ` Imre Deak
2025-07-03 13:34 ` Luca Coelho
2025-06-26 8:20 ` [PATCH 20/20] drm/i915/dp: Ack only the handled link " Imre Deak
2025-07-03 13:18 ` Luca Coelho
2025-06-26 8:37 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success for drm/i915/dp: Fix few SST HPD IRQ handling issues Patchwork
2025-06-26 8:55 ` ✗ CI.checksparse: warning " Patchwork
2025-06-26 9:18 ` ✓ Xe.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2025-06-27 8:21 ` ✗ Xe.CI.Full: failure " Patchwork
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=9ef664aa1e833ee6c3f97533da4a0d828a03f9f2@intel.com \
--to=jani.nikula@linux.intel.com \
--cc=imre.deak@gmail.com \
--cc=imre.deak@intel.com \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
/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