On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 02:54:01PM -0700, Dhinakaran Pandiyan wrote:
> By moving the check from psr_compute_config() to psr_init_dpcd(), we get
> to set the dev_priv->psr.sink_support flag only when the panel is
> capable of changing power state. An additional benefit is that the check
> will be performed only at init time instead of every atomic_check.
>
> This should change the psr_basic IGT failures on HSW to skips.
>
> Cc: José Roberto de Souza <[email protected]>
> Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 8 ++++++--
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c | 12 +++++-------
> 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> index dde92e4af5d3..f1747dff9ca3 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> @@ -3762,8 +3762,6 @@ intel_edp_init_dpcd(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> dev_priv->no_aux_handshake = intel_dp->dpcd[DP_MAX_DOWNSPREAD] &
> DP_NO_AUX_HANDSHAKE_LINK_TRAINING;
>
> - intel_psr_init_dpcd(intel_dp);
> -
> /*
> * Read the eDP display control registers.
> *
> @@ -3779,6 +3777,12 @@ intel_edp_init_dpcd(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> DRM_DEBUG_KMS("eDP DPCD: %*ph\n", (int)
> sizeof(intel_dp->edp_dpcd),
> intel_dp->edp_dpcd);
>
> + /*
> + * This has to be called after initializing intel_dp->edp_dpcd, PSR
> + * checks for the SET_POWER_CAPABLE bit.
> + */
> + intel_psr_init_dpcd(intel_dp);
> +
> /* Read the eDP 1.4+ supported link rates. */
> if (intel_dp->edp_dpcd[0] >= DP_EDP_14) {
> __le16 sink_rates[DP_MAX_SUPPORTED_RATES];
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> index db27f2faa1de..9e6534d57479 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> @@ -251,8 +251,11 @@ void intel_psr_init_dpcd(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> sizeof(intel_dp->psr_dpcd));
>
> if (intel_dp->psr_dpcd[0]) {
> - dev_priv->psr.sink_support = true;
> - DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Detected EDP PSR Panel.\n");
> + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Detected EDP PSR panel\n");
> + if (intel_dp->edp_dpcd[1] & DP_EDP_SET_POWER_CAP)
> + dev_priv->psr.sink_support = true;
> + else
> + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Panel lacks power state control, PSR
> cannot be enabled\n");
> }
This function looks a bit crazy. Why are we going on to parse other
things after psr_dpcd[0] was already deemed to be zero?
Wouldn't it make much more sense to invert the first psr_dpcd[0] check
and bail out entirely?
>
> if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 9 &&
> @@ -640,11 +643,6 @@ void intel_psr_compute_config(struct intel_dp *intel_dp,
> return;
> }
>
> - if (!(intel_dp->edp_dpcd[1] & DP_EDP_SET_POWER_CAP)) {
> - DRM_DEBUG_KMS("PSR condition failed: panel lacks power state
> control\n");
> - return;
> - }
> -
> crtc_state->has_psr = true;
> crtc_state->has_psr2 = intel_psr2_config_valid(intel_dp, crtc_state);
> DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Enabling PSR%s\n", crtc_state->has_psr2 ? "2" : "");
> --
> 2.14.1
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
