Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 7/7] drm/i915: Dont -ETIMEDOUT on identical new and previous (count, crc).
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:26:53AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 10:05:21PM +, Vivi, Rodrigo wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-07-28 at 13:25 -0700, Rafael Antognolli wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 04:35:50PM -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > > > By Vesa DP 1.2 spec TEST_CRC_COUNT is a "4 bit wrap counter which
> > > > increments each time the TEST_CRC_x_x are updated."
> > > >
> > > > However if we are trying to verify the screen hasn't changed we get
> > > > same (count, crc) pair twice. Without this patch we would return
> > > > -ETIMEOUT in this case.
> > > >
> > > > So, if in 6 vblanks the pair (count, crc) hasn't changed we
> > > > return it anyway instead of returning error and let test case decide
> > > > if it was right or not.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi
> > >
> > > Looks good.
> > >
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 21 +++--
> > > > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > > > index c7372a1..e99ec7a 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > > > @@ -4028,6 +4028,7 @@ int intel_dp_sink_crc(struct intel_dp *intel_dp,
> > > > u8 *crc)
> > > > u8 buf;
> > > > int count, ret;
> > > > int attempts = 6;
> > > > + bool old_equal_new;
> > > >
> > > > ret = intel_dp_sink_crc_start(intel_dp);
> > > > if (ret)
> > > > @@ -4042,6 +4043,7 @@ int intel_dp_sink_crc(struct intel_dp *intel_dp,
> > > > u8 *crc)
> > > > goto stop;
> > > > }
> > > > count = buf & DP_TEST_COUNT_MASK;
> > > > +
> > > > /*
> > > > * Count might be reset during the loop. In this case
> > > > * last known count needs to be reset as well.
> > > > @@ -4053,17 +4055,24 @@ int intel_dp_sink_crc(struct intel_dp
> > > > *intel_dp, u8 *crc)
> > > > ret = -EIO;
> > > > goto stop;
> > > > }
> > > > - } while (--attempts && (count == 0 || (count ==
> > > > intel_dp->sink_crc.last_count &&
> > > > -
> > > > !memcmp(intel_dp->sink_crc.last_crc, crc,
> > > > - 6 *
> > > > sizeof(u8);
> > > > +
> > > > + old_equal_new = (count == intel_dp->sink_crc.last_count
> > > > &&
> > > > +!memcmp(intel_dp->sink_crc.last_crc,
> > > > crc,
> > > > +6 * sizeof(u8)));
> > > > +
> > > > + } while (--attempts && (count == 0 || old_equal_new));
> > > >
> > > > intel_dp->sink_crc.last_count = buf & DP_TEST_COUNT_MASK;
> > > > memcpy(intel_dp->sink_crc.last_crc, crc, 6 * sizeof(u8));
> > > >
> > > > if (attempts == 0) {
> > > > - DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Panel is unable to calculate CRC after 6
> > > > vblanks\n");
> > > > - ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
> > > > - goto stop;
> > > > + if (old_equal_new) {
> > > > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Unreliable Sink CRC counter:
> > > > Current returned CRC is identical to the previous one\n");
> > >
> > > Isn't this line a little too long?
> >
> > I agree, but I had no idea how to make it shorter. I believe this long
> > debug message is the only case where we can go over 80 characters in
> > i915. but if it isn't true and/or have a suggestion how to make it
> > shorter please let me know that I can change.
>
> dmesg output is explicitly an exception since breaking lines makes it much
> harder to grep for a line you spot in dmesg. Ofc 500 lines would be a bit
> too much, we're breaking those. But this one here is totally fine.
Nice, I never thought about being able to grep, but makes total sense.
> Remember, checkpatch is just suggestions mostly, not law.
I wasn't aware of it, but good to know that it exists. I'll check it out.
Reviewed-by: Rafael Antognolli
> >
> > >
> > > > + } else {
> > > > + DRM_ERROR("Panel is unable to calculate any CRC
> > > > after 6 vblanks\n");
> > > > + ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
> > > > + goto stop;
> > > > + }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > stop:
> > > > --
> > > > 2.1.0
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > Intel-gfx mailing list
> > > > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> > > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
> >
> > ___
> > Intel-gfx mailing list
> > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
>
> --
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> http://blog.ffwll.ch
___
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 7/7] drm/i915: Dont -ETIMEDOUT on identical new and previous (count, crc).
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 10:05:21PM +, Vivi, Rodrigo wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-07-28 at 13:25 -0700, Rafael Antognolli wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 04:35:50PM -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > > By Vesa DP 1.2 spec TEST_CRC_COUNT is a "4 bit wrap counter which
> > > increments each time the TEST_CRC_x_x are updated."
> > >
> > > However if we are trying to verify the screen hasn't changed we get
> > > same (count, crc) pair twice. Without this patch we would return
> > > -ETIMEOUT in this case.
> > >
> > > So, if in 6 vblanks the pair (count, crc) hasn't changed we
> > > return it anyway instead of returning error and let test case decide
> > > if it was right or not.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi
> >
> > Looks good.
> >
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 21 +++--
> > > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > > index c7372a1..e99ec7a 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > > @@ -4028,6 +4028,7 @@ int intel_dp_sink_crc(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, u8
> > > *crc)
> > > u8 buf;
> > > int count, ret;
> > > int attempts = 6;
> > > + bool old_equal_new;
> > >
> > > ret = intel_dp_sink_crc_start(intel_dp);
> > > if (ret)
> > > @@ -4042,6 +4043,7 @@ int intel_dp_sink_crc(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, u8
> > > *crc)
> > > goto stop;
> > > }
> > > count = buf & DP_TEST_COUNT_MASK;
> > > +
> > > /*
> > >* Count might be reset during the loop. In this case
> > >* last known count needs to be reset as well.
> > > @@ -4053,17 +4055,24 @@ int intel_dp_sink_crc(struct intel_dp *intel_dp,
> > > u8 *crc)
> > > ret = -EIO;
> > > goto stop;
> > > }
> > > - } while (--attempts && (count == 0 || (count ==
> > > intel_dp->sink_crc.last_count &&
> > > -
> > > !memcmp(intel_dp->sink_crc.last_crc, crc,
> > > -6 * sizeof(u8);
> > > +
> > > + old_equal_new = (count == intel_dp->sink_crc.last_count &&
> > > + !memcmp(intel_dp->sink_crc.last_crc, crc,
> > > + 6 * sizeof(u8)));
> > > +
> > > + } while (--attempts && (count == 0 || old_equal_new));
> > >
> > > intel_dp->sink_crc.last_count = buf & DP_TEST_COUNT_MASK;
> > > memcpy(intel_dp->sink_crc.last_crc, crc, 6 * sizeof(u8));
> > >
> > > if (attempts == 0) {
> > > - DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Panel is unable to calculate CRC after 6
> > > vblanks\n");
> > > - ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
> > > - goto stop;
> > > + if (old_equal_new) {
> > > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Unreliable Sink CRC counter: Current
> > > returned CRC is identical to the previous one\n");
> >
> > Isn't this line a little too long?
>
> I agree, but I had no idea how to make it shorter. I believe this long
> debug message is the only case where we can go over 80 characters in
> i915. but if it isn't true and/or have a suggestion how to make it
> shorter please let me know that I can change.
dmesg output is explicitly an exception since breaking lines makes it much
harder to grep for a line you spot in dmesg. Ofc 500 lines would be a bit
too much, we're breaking those. But this one here is totally fine.
Remember, checkpatch is just suggestions mostly, not law.
-Daniel
>
> >
> > > + } else {
> > > + DRM_ERROR("Panel is unable to calculate any CRC after 6
> > > vblanks\n");
> > > + ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
> > > + goto stop;
> > > + }
> > > }
> > >
> > > stop:
> > > --
> > > 2.1.0
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Intel-gfx mailing list
> > > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
>
> ___
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 7/7] drm/i915: Dont -ETIMEDOUT on identical new and previous (count, crc).
On Tue, 2015-07-28 at 13:25 -0700, Rafael Antognolli wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 04:35:50PM -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > By Vesa DP 1.2 spec TEST_CRC_COUNT is a "4 bit wrap counter which
> > increments each time the TEST_CRC_x_x are updated."
> >
> > However if we are trying to verify the screen hasn't changed we get
> > same (count, crc) pair twice. Without this patch we would return
> > -ETIMEOUT in this case.
> >
> > So, if in 6 vblanks the pair (count, crc) hasn't changed we
> > return it anyway instead of returning error and let test case decide
> > if it was right or not.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi
>
> Looks good.
>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 21 +++--
> > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > index c7372a1..e99ec7a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > @@ -4028,6 +4028,7 @@ int intel_dp_sink_crc(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, u8
> > *crc)
> > u8 buf;
> > int count, ret;
> > int attempts = 6;
> > + bool old_equal_new;
> >
> > ret = intel_dp_sink_crc_start(intel_dp);
> > if (ret)
> > @@ -4042,6 +4043,7 @@ int intel_dp_sink_crc(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, u8
> > *crc)
> > goto stop;
> > }
> > count = buf & DP_TEST_COUNT_MASK;
> > +
> > /*
> > * Count might be reset during the loop. In this case
> > * last known count needs to be reset as well.
> > @@ -4053,17 +4055,24 @@ int intel_dp_sink_crc(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, u8
> > *crc)
> > ret = -EIO;
> > goto stop;
> > }
> > - } while (--attempts && (count == 0 || (count ==
> > intel_dp->sink_crc.last_count &&
> > -
> > !memcmp(intel_dp->sink_crc.last_crc, crc,
> > - 6 * sizeof(u8);
> > +
> > + old_equal_new = (count == intel_dp->sink_crc.last_count &&
> > +!memcmp(intel_dp->sink_crc.last_crc, crc,
> > +6 * sizeof(u8)));
> > +
> > + } while (--attempts && (count == 0 || old_equal_new));
> >
> > intel_dp->sink_crc.last_count = buf & DP_TEST_COUNT_MASK;
> > memcpy(intel_dp->sink_crc.last_crc, crc, 6 * sizeof(u8));
> >
> > if (attempts == 0) {
> > - DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Panel is unable to calculate CRC after 6
> > vblanks\n");
> > - ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
> > - goto stop;
> > + if (old_equal_new) {
> > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Unreliable Sink CRC counter: Current
> > returned CRC is identical to the previous one\n");
>
> Isn't this line a little too long?
I agree, but I had no idea how to make it shorter. I believe this long
debug message is the only case where we can go over 80 characters in
i915. but if it isn't true and/or have a suggestion how to make it
shorter please let me know that I can change.
>
> > + } else {
> > + DRM_ERROR("Panel is unable to calculate any CRC after 6
> > vblanks\n");
> > + ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
> > + goto stop;
> > + }
> > }
> >
> > stop:
> > --
> > 2.1.0
> >
> > ___
> > Intel-gfx mailing list
> > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 7/7] drm/i915: Dont -ETIMEDOUT on identical new and previous (count, crc).
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 04:35:50PM -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> By Vesa DP 1.2 spec TEST_CRC_COUNT is a "4 bit wrap counter which
> increments each time the TEST_CRC_x_x are updated."
>
> However if we are trying to verify the screen hasn't changed we get
> same (count, crc) pair twice. Without this patch we would return
> -ETIMEOUT in this case.
>
> So, if in 6 vblanks the pair (count, crc) hasn't changed we
> return it anyway instead of returning error and let test case decide
> if it was right or not.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi
Looks good.
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 21 +++--
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> index c7372a1..e99ec7a 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> @@ -4028,6 +4028,7 @@ int intel_dp_sink_crc(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, u8
> *crc)
> u8 buf;
> int count, ret;
> int attempts = 6;
> + bool old_equal_new;
>
> ret = intel_dp_sink_crc_start(intel_dp);
> if (ret)
> @@ -4042,6 +4043,7 @@ int intel_dp_sink_crc(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, u8
> *crc)
> goto stop;
> }
> count = buf & DP_TEST_COUNT_MASK;
> +
> /*
>* Count might be reset during the loop. In this case
>* last known count needs to be reset as well.
> @@ -4053,17 +4055,24 @@ int intel_dp_sink_crc(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, u8
> *crc)
> ret = -EIO;
> goto stop;
> }
> - } while (--attempts && (count == 0 || (count ==
> intel_dp->sink_crc.last_count &&
> -
> !memcmp(intel_dp->sink_crc.last_crc, crc,
> -6 * sizeof(u8);
> +
> + old_equal_new = (count == intel_dp->sink_crc.last_count &&
> + !memcmp(intel_dp->sink_crc.last_crc, crc,
> + 6 * sizeof(u8)));
> +
> + } while (--attempts && (count == 0 || old_equal_new));
>
> intel_dp->sink_crc.last_count = buf & DP_TEST_COUNT_MASK;
> memcpy(intel_dp->sink_crc.last_crc, crc, 6 * sizeof(u8));
>
> if (attempts == 0) {
> - DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Panel is unable to calculate CRC after 6
> vblanks\n");
> - ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
> - goto stop;
> + if (old_equal_new) {
> + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Unreliable Sink CRC counter: Current
> returned CRC is identical to the previous one\n");
Isn't this line a little too long?
> + } else {
> + DRM_ERROR("Panel is unable to calculate any CRC after 6
> vblanks\n");
> + ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
> + goto stop;
> + }
> }
>
> stop:
> --
> 2.1.0
>
> ___
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
