Re: [PATCH v8 09/35] drm/i915: Implement HDCP2.2 link integrity check
On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 12:16:11PM +0530, C, Ramalingam wrote:
>
> On 12/6/2018 6:57 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 04:13:07PM +0530, Ramalingam C wrote:
> > > Implements the link integrity check once in 500mSec.
> > >
> > > Once encryption is enabled, an ongoing Link Integrity Check is
> > > performed by the HDCP Receiver to check that cipher synchronization
> > > is maintained between the HDCP Transmitter and the HDCP Receiver.
> > >
> > > On the detection of synchronization lost, the HDCP Receiver must assert
> > > the corresponding bits of the RxStatus register. The Transmitter polls
> > > the RxStatus register and it may initiate re-authentication.
> > >
> > > v2:
> > >Rebased.
> > > v3:
> > >No Changes.
> > > v4:
> > >enum check_link_response is used check the link status [Uma]
> > > v5:
> > >Rebased as part of patch reordering.
> > > v6:
> > >Required members of intel_hdcp is defined [Sean Paul]
> > > v7:
> > >hdcp2_check_link is cancelled at required places.
> > > v8:
> > >Rebased for the component i/f changes.
> > >Errors due to the sinks are reported as DEBUG logs.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ramalingam C
> > > Reviewed-by: Uma Shankar
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 11 +++--
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h | 5 +++
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hdcp.c| 83
> > > +++-
> > > include/drm/drm_hdcp.h | 8
> > > 4 files changed, 103 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> > > index e9f4e22b2a4e..fc63babce165 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> > > @@ -15833,15 +15833,20 @@ static void intel_hpd_poll_fini(struct
> > > drm_device *dev)
> > > {
> > > struct intel_connector *connector;
> > > struct drm_connector_list_iter conn_iter;
> > > + struct intel_hdcp *hdcp;
> > > /* Kill all the work that may have been queued by hpd. */
> > > drm_connector_list_iter_begin(dev, _iter);
> > > for_each_intel_connector_iter(connector, _iter) {
> > > + hdcp = >hdcp;
> > > +
> > > if (connector->modeset_retry_work.func)
> > >
> > > cancel_work_sync(>modeset_retry_work);
> > > - if (connector->hdcp.shim) {
> > > - cancel_delayed_work_sync(>hdcp.check_work);
> > > - cancel_work_sync(>hdcp.prop_work);
> > > + if (hdcp->shim) {
> > > + cancel_delayed_work_sync(>check_work);
> > > + cancel_work_sync(>prop_work);
> > > + if (hdcp->hdcp2_supported)
> > > +
> > > cancel_delayed_work_sync(>hdcp2_check_work);
> > Locking of these workers is always tricky ... why can't we use the same
> > worker for both checking hdcp2 and hdcp1 link status?
>
> Doable similar to how we are doing hdcp_enable. Needs the tracking of the
> spec in
> use to pick proper timeout and functions.
Yeah we definitely want separate enable/disable functions for hdcp1 and
hdcp2. I was thinking of only sharing the content_protection status logic,
and the worker scheduling logic. That looks the same, and imo that's the
tricky part. I.e. separate the drm interfacing side more from the hdcp hw
flow.
> I will look into it.
>
> >
> > Of course need to use the right timeout and call the right functions, but
> > I think gives us less duplication in the complicated code.
> >
> >
> > > }
> > > }
> > > drm_connector_list_iter_end(_iter);
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> > > index 24d258488efe..e6e32bf52568 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> > > @@ -403,6 +403,9 @@ struct intel_hdcp_shim {
> > >*/
> > > int (*config_stream_type)(struct intel_digital_port
> > > *intel_dig_port,
> > > void *buf, size_t size);
> > > +
> > > + /* HDCP2.2 Link Integrity Check */
> > > + int (*check_2_2_link)(struct intel_digital_port *intel_dig_port);
> > > };
> > > struct intel_hdcp {
> > > @@ -445,6 +448,8 @@ struct intel_hdcp {
> > >* over re-Auth has to be triggered.
> > >*/
> > > u32 seq_num_m;
> > > +
> > > + struct delayed_work hdcp2_check_work;
> > > };
> > > struct intel_connector {
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hdcp.c
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hdcp.c
> > > index 679f3c164582..98b112395a5a 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hdcp.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hdcp.c
> > > @@ -1626,6 +1626,81 @@ static int _intel_hdcp2_disable(struct
> > > intel_connector *connector)
> > > return ret;
> > > }
> > > +/*
Re: [PATCH v8 09/35] drm/i915: Implement HDCP2.2 link integrity check
On 12/6/2018 6:57 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 04:13:07PM +0530, Ramalingam C wrote:
Implements the link integrity check once in 500mSec.
Once encryption is enabled, an ongoing Link Integrity Check is
performed by the HDCP Receiver to check that cipher synchronization
is maintained between the HDCP Transmitter and the HDCP Receiver.
On the detection of synchronization lost, the HDCP Receiver must assert
the corresponding bits of the RxStatus register. The Transmitter polls
the RxStatus register and it may initiate re-authentication.
v2:
Rebased.
v3:
No Changes.
v4:
enum check_link_response is used check the link status [Uma]
v5:
Rebased as part of patch reordering.
v6:
Required members of intel_hdcp is defined [Sean Paul]
v7:
hdcp2_check_link is cancelled at required places.
v8:
Rebased for the component i/f changes.
Errors due to the sinks are reported as DEBUG logs.
Signed-off-by: Ramalingam C
Reviewed-by: Uma Shankar
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 11 +++--
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h | 5 +++
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hdcp.c| 83 +++-
include/drm/drm_hdcp.h | 8
4 files changed, 103 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
index e9f4e22b2a4e..fc63babce165 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
@@ -15833,15 +15833,20 @@ static void intel_hpd_poll_fini(struct drm_device
*dev)
{
struct intel_connector *connector;
struct drm_connector_list_iter conn_iter;
+ struct intel_hdcp *hdcp;
/* Kill all the work that may have been queued by hpd. */
drm_connector_list_iter_begin(dev, _iter);
for_each_intel_connector_iter(connector, _iter) {
+ hdcp = >hdcp;
+
if (connector->modeset_retry_work.func)
cancel_work_sync(>modeset_retry_work);
- if (connector->hdcp.shim) {
- cancel_delayed_work_sync(>hdcp.check_work);
- cancel_work_sync(>hdcp.prop_work);
+ if (hdcp->shim) {
+ cancel_delayed_work_sync(>check_work);
+ cancel_work_sync(>prop_work);
+ if (hdcp->hdcp2_supported)
+
cancel_delayed_work_sync(>hdcp2_check_work);
Locking of these workers is always tricky ... why can't we use the same
worker for both checking hdcp2 and hdcp1 link status?
Doable similar to how we are doing hdcp_enable. Needs the tracking of the spec
in
use to pick proper timeout and functions.
I will look into it.
Of course need to use the right timeout and call the right functions, but
I think gives us less duplication in the complicated code.
}
}
drm_connector_list_iter_end(_iter);
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
index 24d258488efe..e6e32bf52568 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
@@ -403,6 +403,9 @@ struct intel_hdcp_shim {
*/
int (*config_stream_type)(struct intel_digital_port *intel_dig_port,
void *buf, size_t size);
+
+ /* HDCP2.2 Link Integrity Check */
+ int (*check_2_2_link)(struct intel_digital_port *intel_dig_port);
};
struct intel_hdcp {
@@ -445,6 +448,8 @@ struct intel_hdcp {
* over re-Auth has to be triggered.
*/
u32 seq_num_m;
+
+ struct delayed_work hdcp2_check_work;
};
struct intel_connector {
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hdcp.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hdcp.c
index 679f3c164582..98b112395a5a 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hdcp.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hdcp.c
@@ -1626,6 +1626,81 @@ static int _intel_hdcp2_disable(struct intel_connector
*connector)
return ret;
}
+/* Implements the Link Integrity Check for HDCP2.2 */
+static int intel_hdcp2_check_link(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 = >hdcp;
+ enum port port = connector->encoder->port;
+
+ int ret = 0;
+
+ if (!hdcp->shim)
+ return -ENOENT;
Why is this possible? Should we wrap it into at least a WARN_ON?
we could land here from CP_IRQ, with hdcp_exit called for shim removal.
But could avoid if we assert on the HDCP auth/encrypt status of the port
before check_link.
+
+ mutex_lock(>mutex);
+
+ if (hdcp->value == DRM_MODE_CONTENT_PROTECTION_UNDESIRED)
+ goto out;
+
+ if (!(I915_READ(HDCP2_STATUS_DDI(port)) & LINK_ENCRYPTION_STATUS)) {
+ DRM_ERROR("HDCP2.2 check failed: link is not
Re: [PATCH v8 09/35] drm/i915: Implement HDCP2.2 link integrity check
On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 02:27:21PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 04:13:07PM +0530, Ramalingam C wrote:
> > Implements the link integrity check once in 500mSec.
> >
> > Once encryption is enabled, an ongoing Link Integrity Check is
> > performed by the HDCP Receiver to check that cipher synchronization
> > is maintained between the HDCP Transmitter and the HDCP Receiver.
> >
> > On the detection of synchronization lost, the HDCP Receiver must assert
> > the corresponding bits of the RxStatus register. The Transmitter polls
> > the RxStatus register and it may initiate re-authentication.
> >
> > v2:
> > Rebased.
> > v3:
> > No Changes.
> > v4:
> > enum check_link_response is used check the link status [Uma]
> > v5:
> > Rebased as part of patch reordering.
> > v6:
> > Required members of intel_hdcp is defined [Sean Paul]
> > v7:
> > hdcp2_check_link is cancelled at required places.
> > v8:
> > Rebased for the component i/f changes.
> > Errors due to the sinks are reported as DEBUG logs.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ramalingam C
> > Reviewed-by: Uma Shankar
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 11 +++--
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h | 5 +++
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hdcp.c| 83
> > +++-
> > include/drm/drm_hdcp.h | 8
> > 4 files changed, 103 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> > index e9f4e22b2a4e..fc63babce165 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> > @@ -15833,15 +15833,20 @@ static void intel_hpd_poll_fini(struct drm_device
> > *dev)
> > {
> > struct intel_connector *connector;
> > struct drm_connector_list_iter conn_iter;
> > + struct intel_hdcp *hdcp;
> >
> > /* Kill all the work that may have been queued by hpd. */
> > drm_connector_list_iter_begin(dev, _iter);
> > for_each_intel_connector_iter(connector, _iter) {
> > + hdcp = >hdcp;
> > +
> > if (connector->modeset_retry_work.func)
> > cancel_work_sync(>modeset_retry_work);
> > - if (connector->hdcp.shim) {
> > - cancel_delayed_work_sync(>hdcp.check_work);
> > - cancel_work_sync(>hdcp.prop_work);
> > + if (hdcp->shim) {
> > + cancel_delayed_work_sync(>check_work);
> > + cancel_work_sync(>prop_work);
> > + if (hdcp->hdcp2_supported)
> > +
> > cancel_delayed_work_sync(>hdcp2_check_work);
>
> Locking of these workers is always tricky ... why can't we use the same
> worker for both checking hdcp2 and hdcp1 link status?
>
> Of course need to use the right timeout and call the right functions, but
> I think gives us less duplication in the complicated code.
Locking and also the logic to update the content protection property. I
think sharing the entire main function, and splitting to hdcp1 vs. hdcp2
in the check/enable/disable functions would be neat.
-Daniel
>
>
> > }
> > }
> > drm_connector_list_iter_end(_iter);
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> > index 24d258488efe..e6e32bf52568 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> > @@ -403,6 +403,9 @@ struct intel_hdcp_shim {
> > */
> > int (*config_stream_type)(struct intel_digital_port *intel_dig_port,
> > void *buf, size_t size);
> > +
> > + /* HDCP2.2 Link Integrity Check */
> > + int (*check_2_2_link)(struct intel_digital_port *intel_dig_port);
> > };
> >
> > struct intel_hdcp {
> > @@ -445,6 +448,8 @@ struct intel_hdcp {
> > * over re-Auth has to be triggered.
> > */
> > u32 seq_num_m;
> > +
> > + struct delayed_work hdcp2_check_work;
> > };
> >
> > struct intel_connector {
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hdcp.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hdcp.c
> > index 679f3c164582..98b112395a5a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hdcp.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hdcp.c
> > @@ -1626,6 +1626,81 @@ static int _intel_hdcp2_disable(struct
> > intel_connector *connector)
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > +/* Implements the Link Integrity Check for HDCP2.2 */
> > +static int intel_hdcp2_check_link(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 = >hdcp;
> > + enum port port = connector->encoder->port;
> > +
> > + int ret = 0;
> > +
> > + if (!hdcp->shim)
> > + return -ENOENT;
>
> Why is this possible? Should we wrap it into at least a WARN_ON?
>
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(>mutex);
> > +
> > + if
Re: [PATCH v8 09/35] drm/i915: Implement HDCP2.2 link integrity check
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 04:13:07PM +0530, Ramalingam C wrote:
> Implements the link integrity check once in 500mSec.
>
> Once encryption is enabled, an ongoing Link Integrity Check is
> performed by the HDCP Receiver to check that cipher synchronization
> is maintained between the HDCP Transmitter and the HDCP Receiver.
>
> On the detection of synchronization lost, the HDCP Receiver must assert
> the corresponding bits of the RxStatus register. The Transmitter polls
> the RxStatus register and it may initiate re-authentication.
>
> v2:
> Rebased.
> v3:
> No Changes.
> v4:
> enum check_link_response is used check the link status [Uma]
> v5:
> Rebased as part of patch reordering.
> v6:
> Required members of intel_hdcp is defined [Sean Paul]
> v7:
> hdcp2_check_link is cancelled at required places.
> v8:
> Rebased for the component i/f changes.
> Errors due to the sinks are reported as DEBUG logs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ramalingam C
> Reviewed-by: Uma Shankar
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 11 +++--
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h | 5 +++
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hdcp.c| 83
> +++-
> include/drm/drm_hdcp.h | 8
> 4 files changed, 103 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> index e9f4e22b2a4e..fc63babce165 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> @@ -15833,15 +15833,20 @@ static void intel_hpd_poll_fini(struct drm_device
> *dev)
> {
> struct intel_connector *connector;
> struct drm_connector_list_iter conn_iter;
> + struct intel_hdcp *hdcp;
>
> /* Kill all the work that may have been queued by hpd. */
> drm_connector_list_iter_begin(dev, _iter);
> for_each_intel_connector_iter(connector, _iter) {
> + hdcp = >hdcp;
> +
> if (connector->modeset_retry_work.func)
> cancel_work_sync(>modeset_retry_work);
> - if (connector->hdcp.shim) {
> - cancel_delayed_work_sync(>hdcp.check_work);
> - cancel_work_sync(>hdcp.prop_work);
> + if (hdcp->shim) {
> + cancel_delayed_work_sync(>check_work);
> + cancel_work_sync(>prop_work);
> + if (hdcp->hdcp2_supported)
> +
> cancel_delayed_work_sync(>hdcp2_check_work);
Locking of these workers is always tricky ... why can't we use the same
worker for both checking hdcp2 and hdcp1 link status?
Of course need to use the right timeout and call the right functions, but
I think gives us less duplication in the complicated code.
> }
> }
> drm_connector_list_iter_end(_iter);
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> index 24d258488efe..e6e32bf52568 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> @@ -403,6 +403,9 @@ struct intel_hdcp_shim {
>*/
> int (*config_stream_type)(struct intel_digital_port *intel_dig_port,
> void *buf, size_t size);
> +
> + /* HDCP2.2 Link Integrity Check */
> + int (*check_2_2_link)(struct intel_digital_port *intel_dig_port);
> };
>
> struct intel_hdcp {
> @@ -445,6 +448,8 @@ struct intel_hdcp {
>* over re-Auth has to be triggered.
>*/
> u32 seq_num_m;
> +
> + struct delayed_work hdcp2_check_work;
> };
>
> struct intel_connector {
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hdcp.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hdcp.c
> index 679f3c164582..98b112395a5a 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hdcp.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hdcp.c
> @@ -1626,6 +1626,81 @@ static int _intel_hdcp2_disable(struct intel_connector
> *connector)
> return ret;
> }
>
> +/* Implements the Link Integrity Check for HDCP2.2 */
> +static int intel_hdcp2_check_link(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 = >hdcp;
> + enum port port = connector->encoder->port;
> +
> + int ret = 0;
> +
> + if (!hdcp->shim)
> + return -ENOENT;
Why is this possible? Should we wrap it into at least a WARN_ON?
> +
> + mutex_lock(>mutex);
> +
> + if (hdcp->value == DRM_MODE_CONTENT_PROTECTION_UNDESIRED)
> + goto out;
> +
> + if (!(I915_READ(HDCP2_STATUS_DDI(port)) & LINK_ENCRYPTION_STATUS)) {
> + DRM_ERROR("HDCP2.2 check failed: link is not encrypted, %x\n",
> + I915_READ(HDCP2_STATUS_DDI(port)));
> + ret = -ENXIO;
> + hdcp->value = DRM_MODE_CONTENT_PROTECTION_DESIRED;
> + schedule_work(>prop_work);
> +
[PATCH v8 09/35] drm/i915: Implement HDCP2.2 link integrity check
Implements the link integrity check once in 500mSec.
Once encryption is enabled, an ongoing Link Integrity Check is
performed by the HDCP Receiver to check that cipher synchronization
is maintained between the HDCP Transmitter and the HDCP Receiver.
On the detection of synchronization lost, the HDCP Receiver must assert
the corresponding bits of the RxStatus register. The Transmitter polls
the RxStatus register and it may initiate re-authentication.
v2:
Rebased.
v3:
No Changes.
v4:
enum check_link_response is used check the link status [Uma]
v5:
Rebased as part of patch reordering.
v6:
Required members of intel_hdcp is defined [Sean Paul]
v7:
hdcp2_check_link is cancelled at required places.
v8:
Rebased for the component i/f changes.
Errors due to the sinks are reported as DEBUG logs.
Signed-off-by: Ramalingam C
Reviewed-by: Uma Shankar
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 11 +++--
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h | 5 +++
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hdcp.c| 83 +++-
include/drm/drm_hdcp.h | 8
4 files changed, 103 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
index e9f4e22b2a4e..fc63babce165 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
@@ -15833,15 +15833,20 @@ static void intel_hpd_poll_fini(struct drm_device
*dev)
{
struct intel_connector *connector;
struct drm_connector_list_iter conn_iter;
+ struct intel_hdcp *hdcp;
/* Kill all the work that may have been queued by hpd. */
drm_connector_list_iter_begin(dev, _iter);
for_each_intel_connector_iter(connector, _iter) {
+ hdcp = >hdcp;
+
if (connector->modeset_retry_work.func)
cancel_work_sync(>modeset_retry_work);
- if (connector->hdcp.shim) {
- cancel_delayed_work_sync(>hdcp.check_work);
- cancel_work_sync(>hdcp.prop_work);
+ if (hdcp->shim) {
+ cancel_delayed_work_sync(>check_work);
+ cancel_work_sync(>prop_work);
+ if (hdcp->hdcp2_supported)
+
cancel_delayed_work_sync(>hdcp2_check_work);
}
}
drm_connector_list_iter_end(_iter);
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
index 24d258488efe..e6e32bf52568 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
@@ -403,6 +403,9 @@ struct intel_hdcp_shim {
*/
int (*config_stream_type)(struct intel_digital_port *intel_dig_port,
void *buf, size_t size);
+
+ /* HDCP2.2 Link Integrity Check */
+ int (*check_2_2_link)(struct intel_digital_port *intel_dig_port);
};
struct intel_hdcp {
@@ -445,6 +448,8 @@ struct intel_hdcp {
* over re-Auth has to be triggered.
*/
u32 seq_num_m;
+
+ struct delayed_work hdcp2_check_work;
};
struct intel_connector {
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hdcp.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hdcp.c
index 679f3c164582..98b112395a5a 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hdcp.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hdcp.c
@@ -1626,6 +1626,81 @@ static int _intel_hdcp2_disable(struct intel_connector
*connector)
return ret;
}
+/* Implements the Link Integrity Check for HDCP2.2 */
+static int intel_hdcp2_check_link(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 = >hdcp;
+ enum port port = connector->encoder->port;
+
+ int ret = 0;
+
+ if (!hdcp->shim)
+ return -ENOENT;
+
+ mutex_lock(>mutex);
+
+ if (hdcp->value == DRM_MODE_CONTENT_PROTECTION_UNDESIRED)
+ goto out;
+
+ if (!(I915_READ(HDCP2_STATUS_DDI(port)) & LINK_ENCRYPTION_STATUS)) {
+ DRM_ERROR("HDCP2.2 check failed: link is not encrypted, %x\n",
+ I915_READ(HDCP2_STATUS_DDI(port)));
+ ret = -ENXIO;
+ hdcp->value = DRM_MODE_CONTENT_PROTECTION_DESIRED;
+ schedule_work(>prop_work);
+ goto out;
+ }
+
+ ret = hdcp->shim->check_2_2_link(intel_dig_port);
+ if (ret == DRM_HDCP_LINK_PROTECTED) {
+ if (hdcp->value != DRM_MODE_CONTENT_PROTECTION_UNDESIRED) {
+ hdcp->value = DRM_MODE_CONTENT_PROTECTION_ENABLED;
+ schedule_work(>prop_work);
+ }
+ goto out;
+ }
+
+ DRM_DEBUG_KMS("[%s:%d] HDCP2.2 link failed, retrying auth\n",
+ connector->base.name, connector->base.base.id);
+
+ ret =
