On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 02:13:21AM +0000, Pandiyan, Dhinakaran wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 2018-03-06 at 17:36 -0800, Manasi Navare wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 12:24:46AM +0000, Pandiyan, Dhinakaran wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2018-03-06 at 15:24 -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 10:37:48AM -0800, matthew.s.atw...@intel.com
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > From: Matt Atwood <matthew.s.atw...@intel.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > DP_TRAINING_AUX_RD_INTERVAL with DP 1.3 spec changed bit scheme from 8
> > > > > bits to 7 bits in DPCD 0x000e. The 8th bit describes a new feature,
> > > > > for
> > > > > panels that use this new feature, this would cause a wait interval for
> > > > > clock recovery of at least 512 ms, much higher then spec maximum of
> > > > > 16 ms.
> > > > > This behavior is described in table 2-158 of DP 1.4 spec address
> > > > > 0000Eh.
> > > > > To avoid breaking panels
> > >
> > > See comment below:
> > >
> > > > that are not spec compliant we now warn on
> > > > > invalid values.
> > > > >
> > > > > V2: commit title/message, masking all 7 bits, warn on out of spec
> > > > > values.
> > > >
> > > > this approach is even better imho.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Matt Atwood <matthew.s.atw...@intel.com>
> > > >
> > > > Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.v...@intel.com>
> > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c | 18 ++++++++++++++----
> > > > > include/drm/drm_dp_helper.h | 1 +
> > > > > 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c
> > > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c
> > > > > index adf79be..a718ccc 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c
> > > > > @@ -119,18 +119,28 @@ u8 drm_dp_get_adjust_request_pre_emphasis(const
> > > > > u8 link_status[DP_LINK_STATUS_SI
> > > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_dp_get_adjust_request_pre_emphasis);
> > > > >
> > > > > void drm_dp_link_train_clock_recovery_delay(const u8
> > > > > dpcd[DP_RECEIVER_CAP_SIZE]) {
> > > > > - if (dpcd[DP_TRAINING_AUX_RD_INTERVAL] == 0)
> > > > > + int rd_interval = dpcd[DP_TRAINING_AUX_RD_INTERVAL] &
> > > > > DP_TRAINING_AUX_RD_MASK;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (rd_interval > 4)
> > > > > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("AUX interval %d, out of range (max 4)",
> > > > > rd_interval);
> > >
> > > Some default for panels without a valid value?
> > > rd_interval = 4;
> > > "AUX read interval out of range, using max %d ms"
> > >
> >
> > The problem with setting the upper bound to 4 is that there are panels
> > that do not follow the spec and expect a longer than 16 ms delay. So
> > if we set the upper bound to 4 in those cases the panels might not work.
> >
> > So we decided to go with this approach where we tell the users that panel
> > is requesting
> > out of range AUX value but then set it to the value * 4 in the else part.
> >
>
> Thanks for the clarification. My concern is if the DPCD is advertizing
> an out of spec value, it might as well be advertizing a delay that the
> panel doesn't need. And I thought panel quirks were supposed to be used
> for working around things like this. To be clear, this is not a big
> enough concern to block this fix.
>
> Like I said in the other email, this patch refers to DP 1.4, shouldn't
> the clock recovery delay be updated too (in a separate patch)?
We clearly need more work here.
I can see here on DP-v1.2a_d11:
00h = 100us for the Main Link Clock Recovery phase 400us for the Main Link
Channel
Equalization phase and for FAUX training.
01h = 4ms all.
02h = 8ms all.
03h = 12ms all.
04h = 16ms all.
So probably the initial mask on this patch should be marked with /* XXX 1.2? */
because it clearly got introduced in some 1.2 minor release.
But even for DP 1.2 it doesn't seem we are doing it right on the 0 case.
It seems that we are using 100us for both channel eq and clock recovery, right?
or am I missing something?
Then DP 1.3 keeps same config.
But DP 1.4 change all values.
clock recovery is always 100us and channel eq is depending on this bit * 4 and
400us when bit is zeroed.
But limited to 4.
So we probably need 3 patches here:
1. - This one to protect against bad panels masking it and mentioning DP 1.2,
nor 1.3 or 1.4. Also limiting rd_interval to 4 as DK suggested. Panels
cannot
expect all drivers are using this value * 4 blindly since it is not on
spec.
2. - Fix channel eq for 0 case since 1.2. It should be 400us.
3. - For DP version >= 1.4 always use 100us for clock req or follow this
register for
channel eq.
Thoughts?
>
>
> > Manasi
> >
> > >
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (rd_interval == 0)
> > > > > udelay(100);
> > > > > else
> > > > > - mdelay(dpcd[DP_TRAINING_AUX_RD_INTERVAL] * 4);
> > > > > + mdelay(rd_interval * 4);
> > > > > }
> > > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_dp_link_train_clock_recovery_delay);
> > > > >
> > > > > void drm_dp_link_train_channel_eq_delay(const u8
> > > > > dpcd[DP_RECEIVER_CAP_SIZE]) {
> > > > > - if (dpcd[DP_TRAINING_AUX_RD_INTERVAL] == 0)
> > > > > + int rd_interval = dpcd[DP_TRAINING_AUX_RD_INTERVAL] &
> > > > > DP_TRAINING_AUX_RD_MASK;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (rd_interval > 4)
> > > > > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("AUX interval %d, out of range (max 4)",
> > > > > rd_interval);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (rd_interval == 0)
> > > > > udelay(400);
> > > > > else
> > > > > - mdelay(dpcd[DP_TRAINING_AUX_RD_INTERVAL] * 4);
> > > > > + mdelay(rd_interval * 4);
> > > > > }
> > > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_dp_link_train_channel_eq_delay);
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/include/drm/drm_dp_helper.h b/include/drm/drm_dp_helper.h
> > > > > index da58a42..f80acf1 100644
> > > > > --- a/include/drm/drm_dp_helper.h
> > > > > +++ b/include/drm/drm_dp_helper.h
> > > > > @@ -118,6 +118,7 @@
> > > > > # define DP_DPCD_DISPLAY_CONTROL_CAPABLE (1 << 3) /* edp v1.2 or
> > > > > higher */
> > > > >
> > > > > #define DP_TRAINING_AUX_RD_INTERVAL 0x00e /* XXX 1.2? */
> > > > > +# define DP_TRAINING_AUX_RD_MASK 0x7F /* 1.3 */
> > > > >
> > > > > #define DP_ADAPTER_CAP 0x00f /* 1.2 */
> > > > > # define DP_FORCE_LOAD_SENSE_CAP (1 << 0)
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.7.4
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
