On Tue, 11 Jul 2017, Jim Bride <jim.br...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> According to the eDP spec, when the count field in TEST_SINK_MISC
> increments then the six bytes of sink CRC information in the DPCD
> should be valid. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be the case
> on some panels, and as a result we get some incorrect and inconsistent
> values from the sink CRC DPCD locations at times. This problem exhibits
> itself more on faster processors (relative failure rates HSW < SKL < KBL.)
> In order to try and account for this, we try a lot harder to read the sink
> CRC until we get consistent values twice in a row before returning what we
> read and delay for a time before trying to read. We still see some
> occasional failures, but reading the sink CRC is much more reliable,
> particularly on SKL and KBL, with these changes than without.
>
> v2: * Reduce number of retries when reading the sink CRC (Jani)
> * Refactor to minimize changes to the code (Jani)
> * Rebase
>
> Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.v...@intel.com>
> Cc: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zan...@intel.com>
> Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nik...@intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.v...@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jim Bride <jim.br...@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> index 2d42d09..69c8130c 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> @@ -3906,6 +3906,14 @@ int intel_dp_sink_crc(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, u8
> *crc)
> u8 buf;
> int count, ret;
> int attempts = 6;
> + u8 old_crc[6];
> +
> + if (crc != NULL) {
As DK said, please drop the check.
> + memset(crc, 0, 6);
> + memset(old_crc, 0xff, 6);
Both unnecessary, see below.
> + } else {
> + return -ENOMEM;
> + }
>
> ret = intel_dp_sink_crc_start(intel_dp);
> if (ret)
> @@ -3929,11 +3937,35 @@ int intel_dp_sink_crc(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, u8
> *crc)
> goto stop;
> }
>
> - if (drm_dp_dpcd_read(&intel_dp->aux, DP_TEST_CRC_R_CR, crc, 6) < 0) {
> - ret = -EIO;
> - goto stop;
> - }
> + attempts = 6;
> +
> + /*
> + * Sometimes it takes a while for the "real" CRC values to land in
> + * the DPCD, so try several times until we get two reads in a row
> + * that are the same. If we're an eDP panel, delay between reads
> + * for a while since the values take a bit longer to propagate.
> + */
> + do {
Never use a do-while when a for loop will do. for (i = 0; i < 6; i++)
gets interpreted in the spine, no need for further processing.
> + intel_wait_for_vblank(dev_priv, intel_crtc->pipe);
> + if (is_edp(intel_dp))
> + usleep_range(20000, 25000);
Is the intention to do these *between* reads? If yes, then move this
*after* the memcmp to only do this between reads.
> +
> + if (drm_dp_dpcd_read(&intel_dp->aux, DP_TEST_CRC_R_CR,
> + crc, 6) < 0) {
> + ret = -EIO;
> + goto stop;
break;
> + }
> +
> + if (memcmp(old_crc, crc, 6) == 0) {
> + ret = 0;
> + goto stop;
> + } else {
> + memcpy(old_crc, crc, 6);
> + }
After you've switched this to the for loop, you can do:
if (i && memcmp(old_crc, crc, sizeof(old_crc)) == 0)
break;
memcpy(old_crc, crc, sizeof(old_crc));
> + } while (--attempts);
>
if (i == 6) {
> + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Failed to get CRC after 6 attempts.\n");
> + ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
}
> stop:
> intel_dp_sink_crc_stop(intel_dp);
> return ret;
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
