On Thursday 31 May 2018 12:39 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 06:23:44PM +0530, Ramalingam C wrote:
Implements the enable and disable functions for HDCP2.2 encryption
of the PORT.

v2:
   intel_wait_for_register is used instead of wait_for. [Chris Wilson]
v3:
   No Changes.
v4:
   Debug msg is added for timeout at Disable of Encryption [Uma]
   %s/HDCP2_CTL/HDCP2_CTL

Signed-off-by: Ramalingam C <ramalinga...@intel.com>
---
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hdcp.c | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  1 file changed, 57 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hdcp.c 
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hdcp.c
index bd0bfcfd5b8f..0386a67c3e32 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hdcp.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hdcp.c
@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
                                         (enum hdcp_physical_port) (port))
  #define KEY_LOAD_TRIES        5
  #define HDCP2_LC_RETRY_CNT            3
+#define TIME_FOR_ENCRYPT_STATUS_CHANGE 32
static int intel_hdcp_poll_ksv_fifo(struct intel_digital_port *intel_dig_port,
                                    const struct intel_hdcp_shim *shim)
@@ -1397,3 +1398,59 @@ static int hdcp2_authenticate_sink(struct 
intel_connector *connector)
return ret;
  }
+
+static int hdcp2_enable_encryption(struct intel_connector *connector)
+{
+       struct intel_digital_port *intel_dig_port = conn_to_dig_port(connector);
+       struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(connector->base.dev);
+       struct intel_hdcp *hdcp = &connector->hdcp;
+       enum port port = connector->encoder->port;
+       int ret;
+
+       if (I915_READ(HDCP2_STATUS_DDI(port)) & LINK_ENCRYPTION_STATUS)
+               return 0;
Relying on hw status for state decisions is in my experience bad - it
papers over bugs in our state handling. We should know what the expected
state of the hardware is.

If you want to write a bit more robust code, then keep these checks, but
wrap them in a WARN_ON. That way we'll know if there's a regression in the
code (e.g. unbalanced enable/disable) right away, instead of these checks
silently papering over them.

+
+       if (hdcp->hdcp_shim->toggle_signalling)
+               hdcp->hdcp_shim->toggle_signalling(intel_dig_port, true);
+
+       if (I915_READ(HDCP2_STATUS_DDI(port)) & LINK_AUTH_STATUS) {
Same for this check here. In general control flow that depends upon
register values which can change at runtime is very suspect from a design
robustness point of view.

Sure. I will move these HW status check into the WARN_ONs.

-Ram.
-Daniel

+
+               /* Link is Authenticated. Now set for Encryption */
+               I915_WRITE(HDCP2_CTL_DDI(port),
+                          I915_READ(HDCP2_CTL_DDI(port)) |
+                          CTL_LINK_ENCRYPTION_REQ);
+       }
+
+       ret = intel_wait_for_register(dev_priv, HDCP2_STATUS_DDI(port),
+                                     LINK_ENCRYPTION_STATUS,
+                                     LINK_ENCRYPTION_STATUS,
+                                     TIME_FOR_ENCRYPT_STATUS_CHANGE);
+
+       return ret;
+}
+
+static int hdcp2_disable_encryption(struct intel_connector *connector)
+{
+       struct intel_digital_port *intel_dig_port = conn_to_dig_port(connector);
+       struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(connector->base.dev);
+       struct intel_hdcp *hdcp = &connector->hdcp;
+       enum port port = connector->encoder->port;
+       int ret;
+
+       if (!(I915_READ(HDCP2_STATUS_DDI(port)) & LINK_ENCRYPTION_STATUS))
+               return 0;
+
+       I915_WRITE(HDCP2_CTL_DDI(port),
+                  I915_READ(HDCP2_CTL_DDI(port)) & ~CTL_LINK_ENCRYPTION_REQ);
+
+       ret = intel_wait_for_register(dev_priv, HDCP2_STATUS_DDI(port),
+                                     LINK_ENCRYPTION_STATUS, 0x0,
+                                     TIME_FOR_ENCRYPT_STATUS_CHANGE);
+       if (ret == -ETIMEDOUT)
+               DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Disable Encryption Timedout");
+
+       if (hdcp->hdcp_shim->toggle_signalling)
+               hdcp->hdcp_shim->toggle_signalling(intel_dig_port, false);
+
+       return ret;
+}
--
2.7.4


_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Reply via email to