On Fri, 17 Oct 2025, Gustavo Sousa <[email protected]> wrote: > Quoting Jani Nikula (2025-10-15 12:24:12-03:00) >>On Wed, 15 Oct 2025, Gustavo Sousa <[email protected]> wrote: >>> VBT version 264 adds new fields associated to Xe3p_LPD's new ways of >>> configuring SoC for TC ports and PHYs. Update the code to match the >>> updates in VBT. >>> >>> The new field dedicated_external is used to represent TC ports that are >>> connected to PHYs outside of the Type-C subsystem, meaning that they >>> behave like dedicated ports and don't require the extra Type-C >>> programming. In an upcoming change, we will update the driver to take >>> this field into consideration when detecting the type of port. >>> >>> The new field dyn_port_over_tc is used to inform that the TC port can be >>> dynamically allocated for a legacy connector in the Type-C subsystem, >>> which is a new feature in Xe3p_LPD. In upcoming changes, we will use >>> that field in order to handle the IOM resource management programming >>> required for that. >>> >>> Note that, when dedicated_external is set, the fields dp_usb_type_c and >>> tbt are tagged as "don't care" in the spec, so they should be ignored in >>> that case, so also make sure to update the accessor functions to take >>> that into consideration. >>> >>> Bspec: 20124, 68954, 74304 >>> Cc: Shekhar Chauhan <[email protected]> >>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo Sousa <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_bios.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++++- >>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_bios.h | 2 ++ >>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vbt_defs.h | 7 ++++++- >>> 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_bios.c >>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_bios.c >>> index 3596dce84c28..e466728ced0f 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_bios.c >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_bios.c >>> @@ -2777,7 +2777,7 @@ static int child_device_expected_size(u16 version) >>> { >>> BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct child_device_config) < 40); >>> >>> - if (version > 263) >>> + if (version > 264) >>> return -ENOENT; >>> else if (version >= 263) >>> return 44; >>> @@ -3714,14 +3714,32 @@ int intel_bios_hdmi_ddc_pin(const struct >>> intel_bios_encoder_data *devdata) >>> >>> bool intel_bios_encoder_supports_typec_usb(const struct >>> intel_bios_encoder_data *devdata) >>> { >>> + if (intel_bios_encoder_is_dedicated_external(devdata)) >>> + return false; >>> + >> >>We already have mechanisms for this. Please don't pollute the functions. >> >>dp_usb_type_c should just be set to 0 in a new sanitize_something() >>function at the end of parse_ddi_port() >> >>> return devdata->display->vbt.version >= 195 && >>> devdata->child.dp_usb_type_c; >>> } >>> >>> bool intel_bios_encoder_supports_tbt(const struct intel_bios_encoder_data >>> *devdata) >>> { >>> + if (intel_bios_encoder_is_dedicated_external(devdata)) >>> + return false; >>> + >> >>Ditto. >> >>tbt should just be set to 0 in a new sanitize_something() function at >>the end of parse_ddi_port() > > Aren't sanitize_*() functions, at least in the context of intel_bios.c, > for actually fixing bogus information reported by the VBT?
Yes. > Arguably, that wouldn't be the case for dedicated_external and the > related fields, since it is actually about a new way to interpret bits > for the new version of the VBT. Well, if the spec says you shouln't have some bits set in combination with something else, then having those set is bogus, no? > One of my concerns with the sanitize approach would be gotchas with > anything that tries to use the fields before they are sanitized (e.g. > another sanitization function gets added in the future that would use > one of the sanitized fields). Perhaps that's never gonna happen? The sanitization part should be careful about that, obviously. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel
