On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 03:46:09PM -0800, Pandiyan, Dhinakaran wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 15:26 -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > It is a fact that scheduled work is now improved.
> >
> > But it is also a fact that on core platforms that shouldn't
> > be needed. We only need to actually wait on VLV/CHV.
> >
> > The immediate enabling is actually not an issue for the
> > HW perspective for core platforms that have HW tracking.
> > HW will wait few identical idle frames before transitioning
> > to actual psr active anyways.
> >
> > Note that this patch also remove the delayed activation
> > on HSW and BDW introduced by commit 'd0ac896a477d
> > ("drm/i915: Delay first PSR activation.")'. This was
> > introduced to fix a blank screen on VLV/CHV and also
> > masked some frozen screens on other core platforms.
> > Probably the same that we are now properly hunting and fixing.
> >
> > Furthermore, if we stop using delayed activation on core
> > platforms we will be able, on following up patches,
> > to use available workarounds to make HW tracking properly
> > exit PSR instead of the big nuke of disabling psr and
> > re-enable on exit and activate respectively.
> > At least on few reliable cases.
> >
> > Cc: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandi...@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.v...@intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 14 +++++++-------
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++--------
> > 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > index da80ee16a3cf..541290c307c7 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > @@ -2522,18 +2522,18 @@ static int i915_edp_psr_status(struct seq_file *m,
> > void *data)
> > seq_printf(m, "Busy frontbuffer bits: 0x%03x\n",
> > dev_priv->psr.busy_frontbuffer_bits);
> >
> > - if (timer_pending(&dev_priv->psr.activate_timer))
> > - seq_printf(m, "Activate scheduled: yes, in %dms\n",
> > -
> > jiffies_to_msecs(dev_priv->psr.activate_timer.expires - jiffies));
> > - else
> > - seq_printf(m, "Activate scheduled: no\n");
> > -
> > - if (HAS_DDI(dev_priv)) {
> > + if (!IS_VALLEYVIEW(dev_priv) && !IS_CHERRYVIEW(dev_priv)) {
>
> I don't get this change, it is better to retain HAS_DDI().
>
>
> > if (dev_priv->psr.psr2_support)
> > enabled = I915_READ(EDP_PSR2_CTL) & EDP_PSR2_ENABLE;
> > else
> > enabled = I915_READ(EDP_PSR_CTL) & EDP_PSR_ENABLE;
> > } else {
> > + if (timer_pending(&dev_priv->psr.activate_timer))
> > + seq_printf(m, "Activate scheduled: yes, in %dms\n",
> > +
> > jiffies_to_msecs(dev_priv->psr.activate_timer.expires - jiffies));
> > + else
> > + seq_printf(m, "Activate scheduled: no\n");
> > +
> > for_each_pipe(dev_priv, pipe) {
> > enum transcoder cpu_transcoder =
> > intel_pipe_to_cpu_transcoder(dev_priv, pipe);
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > index 826b480841ac..13409c6301e8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > @@ -455,6 +455,8 @@ static void intel_psr_schedule(struct drm_i915_private
> > *i915,
> > {
> > unsigned long next;
> >
> > + WARN_ON(!IS_VALLEYVIEW(i915) && !IS_CHERRYVIEW(i915));
> > +
> How about using only !(IS_VLV() || IS_CHV) in this file.
>
> I think this is a reasonable check to have, please add a return too.
> WARN_ON(!(IS_VLV() || IS_CHV())
> return;
>
> > lockdep_assert_held(&i915->psr.lock);
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -543,7 +545,7 @@ void intel_psr_enable(struct intel_dp *intel_dp,
> > dev_priv->psr.enable_source(intel_dp, crtc_state);
> > dev_priv->psr.enabled = intel_dp;
> >
> > - if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 9) {
> > + if (!IS_VALLEYVIEW(dev_priv) && !IS_CHERRYVIEW(dev_priv)) {
>
> How about inverting this?
>
> if (IS_VLV() || IS_CHV())
> intel_psr_schedule()
> else
> intel_psr_activate()
>
> is easier to follow IMO.
>
>
> What is the reason to not use HAS_DDI() ?
I believe HAS_DDI is not meaningful here. It is just a coincidence.
maybe we could simplify everything with has_hw_tracking.... but also
a coincidence in other cases...
maybe create something meaninfull like VLV_PSR... :/
no strong feelings actually...
>
> > intel_psr_activate(intel_dp);
> > } else {
> > /*
> > @@ -553,8 +555,6 @@ void intel_psr_enable(struct intel_dp *intel_dp,
> > * However on some platforms we face issues when first
> > * activation follows a modeset so quickly.
> > * - On VLV/CHV we get bank screen on first activation
> > - * - On HSW/BDW we get a recoverable frozen screen until
> > - * next exit-activate sequence.
> > */
> > intel_psr_schedule(dev_priv,
> > intel_dp->panel_power_cycle_delay * 5);
> > @@ -687,6 +687,8 @@ static void intel_psr_work(struct work_struct *work)
> > struct drm_crtc *crtc = dp_to_dig_port(intel_dp)->base.base.crtc;
> > enum pipe pipe = to_intel_crtc(crtc)->pipe;
> >
> > + WARN_ON(!IS_VALLEYVIEW(dev_priv) && !IS_CHERRYVIEW(dev_priv));
> > +
>
> This is not needed, we don't even setup the work function for VLV/CHV.
> Since the functions are all contained in this one file, I don't see much
> risk of somehow ending up here.
>
> > /* We have to make sure PSR is ready for re-enable
> > * otherwise it keeps disabled until next full enable/disable cycle.
> > * PSR might take some time to get fully disabled
> > @@ -757,6 +759,8 @@ static void intel_psr_timer_fn(struct timer_list *timer)
> > struct drm_i915_private *i915 =
> > from_timer(i915, timer, psr.activate_timer);
> >
> > + WARN_ON(!IS_VALLEYVIEW(i915) && !IS_CHERRYVIEW(i915));
> > +
>
> This is not needed too.
>
> > /*
> > * We need a non-atomic context to activate PSR. Using
> > * delayed_work wouldn't be an improvement -- delayed_work is
> > @@ -945,9 +949,12 @@ void intel_psr_flush(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > if (frontbuffer_bits)
> > intel_psr_exit(dev_priv);
> >
> > - if (!dev_priv->psr.active && !dev_priv->psr.busy_frontbuffer_bits)
> > - intel_psr_schedule(dev_priv, 100);
> > -
> > + if (!dev_priv->psr.active && !dev_priv->psr.busy_frontbuffer_bits) {
> > + if (IS_VALLEYVIEW(dev_priv) || IS_CHERRYVIEW(dev_priv))
> > + intel_psr_schedule(dev_priv, 100);
> > + else
> > + intel_psr_activate(dev_priv->psr.enabled);
> > + }
> > mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->psr.lock);
> > }
> >
> > @@ -994,8 +1001,12 @@ void intel_psr_init(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > dev_priv->psr.link_standby = false;
> > }
> >
> > - timer_setup(&dev_priv->psr.activate_timer, intel_psr_timer_fn, 0);
> > - INIT_WORK(&dev_priv->psr.activate_work, intel_psr_work);
> > + if (IS_VALLEYVIEW(dev_priv) || IS_CHERRYVIEW(dev_priv)) {
> > + timer_setup(&dev_priv->psr.activate_timer,
> > + intel_psr_timer_fn, 0);
> > + INIT_WORK(&dev_priv->psr.activate_work, intel_psr_work);
> > + }
> > +
> > mutex_init(&dev_priv->psr.lock);
> >
> > if (IS_VALLEYVIEW(dev_priv) || IS_CHERRYVIEW(dev_priv)) {
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
