On Mon, 2018-08-13 at 18:10 +0000, Pandiyan, Dhinakaran wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-08-13 at 09:57 -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 05:41:35PM -0700, Dhinakaran Pandiyan
> > wrote:
> > > CI runs show PSR2 does not go to IDLE with selective update
> > > enabled
> > > on
> > > all PSR exit triggers. Specifically, logs indicate the hardware
> > > enters
> > > "SLEEP Selective Update" and not "IDLE Reset state' like the
> > > kernel
> > > expects. This check was added for PSR1 but incorrectly extended
> > > to
> > > PSR2,
> > > remove this check for PSR2 as there is a plan to test only PSR1
> > > on
> > > PSR2
> > > panels.
> > >
> > > Also add bspec reference to the comment about idle timeout.
> > >
> > > Cc: Tarun Vyas <tarun.v...@intel.com>
> > > Cc: José Roberto de Souza <jose.so...@intel.com>
> > > Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.v...@intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandi...@intel.com
> > > >
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c | 39 ++++++++++++--------------
> > > ------
> > > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > > index 5686ddaa6a72..09be9bfee2be 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > > @@ -722,37 +722,26 @@ int intel_psr_wait_for_idle(const struct
> > > intel_crtc_state *new_crtc_state,
> > > {
> > > struct intel_crtc *crtc = to_intel_crtc(new_crtc_state-
> > > > base.crtc);
> > >
> > > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(crtc-
> > > > base.dev);
> > >
> > > - i915_reg_t reg;
> > > - u32 mask;
> > > -
> > > - if (!new_crtc_state->has_psr)
> > > - return 0;
> > >
> > > /*
> > > - * The sole user right now is intel_pipe_update_start(),
> > > - * which won't race with psr_enable/disable, which is
> > > - * where psr2_enabled is written to. So, we don't need
> > > - * to acquire the psr.lock. More importantly, we want
> > > the
> > > - * latency inside intel_pipe_update_start() to be as low
> > > - * as possible, so no need to acquire psr.lock when it
> > > is
> > > - * not needed and will induce latencies in the atomic
> > > - * update path.
> > > + * The sole user right now is intel_pipe_update_start(),
> > > which won't
> > > + * race with psr_enable/disable where psr2_enabled is
> > > written to. So, we
> > > + * don't need to acquire the psr.lock. More importantly,
> > > we want the
> > > + * latency inside intel_pipe_update_start() to be as low
> > > as possible, so
> > > + * no need to acquire psr.lock when it is not needed and
> > > will induce
> > > + * latencies in the atomic update path.
> > > */
> >
> > I think we shouldn't change this format here to keep patch
> > cleaner...
> > if there is any change here I couldn't see because it is changing
> > all
> > lines and if there is no change I think it is better not to touch
> > because
> > it removes the focus of the real changes.
>
> Okay.
> >
> > > - if (dev_priv->psr.psr2_enabled) {
> > > - reg = EDP_PSR2_STATUS;
> > > - mask = EDP_PSR2_STATUS_STATE_MASK;
> > > - } else {
> > > - reg = EDP_PSR_STATUS;
> > > - mask = EDP_PSR_STATUS_STATE_MASK;
> > > - }
> > > + if (!new_crtc_state->has_psr || READ_ONCE(dev_priv-
> > > > psr.psr2_enabled))
> >
> > I now see that we are removing psr2 of the picture, but I don't see
> > how we are
> > improving psr2 situation here.
> > what am I missing?
> >
>
> When the patch was written, we did not have sufficient tests to tell
> us
> the wait_for_idle condition was wrong for PSR2. It was not known
> whether the wait was *necessary* for PSR2, think of this as a partial
> revert. Now that CI has pointed out, (and I checked with a PSR2
> panel)
> that the condition is wrong, we should be removing it for PSR2. If
> you
> think about it, it does improve PSR2 my removing irrelevant code.
>
I'll submit a new version without the comment diff if you are satisfied
with the above reasoning.
>
> > > + return 0;
> > >
> > > /*
> > > - * Max time for PSR to idle = Inverse of the refresh
> > > rate
> > > +
> > > - * 6 ms of exit training time + 1.5 ms of aux channel
> > > - * handshake. 50 msec is defesive enough to cover
> > > everything.
> > > + * From Bspec Panel Self Refresh (BDW+):
> >
> > This is another case, if we didn't change the format only this line
> > ^
> > would be in the patch and it would be cleaner and easier to review
> > the
> > changes.
> >
> > but my biggest concern with this patch is how do we check now
> > wait_psr2 idle
> >
> > > + * Max. time for PSR to idle = inverse of the refresh
> > > rate
> > > + 6 ms of
> > > + * exit training time + 1.5 ms of aux channel handshake.
> > > 50 ms is
> > > + * defensive enough to cover everything.
> > > */
> > > -
> > > - return __intel_wait_for_register(dev_priv, reg, mask,
> > > + return __intel_wait_for_register(dev_priv,
> > > EDP_PSR_STATUS,
> > > + EDP_PSR_STATUS_STATE_MA
> > > SK
> > > ,
> > > EDP_PSR_STATUS_STATE_ID
> > > LE
> > > , 2, 50,
> > > out_value);
> > > }
> > > --
> > > 2.17.1
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Intel-gfx mailing list
> > > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
