On Wed, 2018-03-28 at 17:37 +0000, Pandiyan, Dhinakaran wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, 2018-03-28 at 13:28 +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 06:33:11PM +0000, Pandiyan, Dhinakaran wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2018-03-27 at 13:24 +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 06:16:22PM -0700, Dhinakaran Pandiyan wrote:
> > > > > Interrupts other than the one for AUX errors are required only for 
> > > > > debug,
> > > > > so unmask them via debugfs when the user requests debug.
> > > > > 
> > > > > User can make such a request with
> > > > > echo 1 > <DEBUG_FS>/dri/0/i915_edp_psr_debug
> > > > > 
> > > > > v2: Unroll loops (Ville)
> > > > >     Avoid resetting error mask bits.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <[email protected]>
> > > > > Cc: Ville Syrjälä <[email protected]>
> > > > > Cc: Chris Wilson <[email protected]>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <[email protected]>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h     |  1 +
> > > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c     | 55 
> > > > > +++++++++++--------------------------
> > > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h    |  2 ++
> > > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c    | 54 
> > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > >  5 files changed, 108 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
> > > > > 
> <snip>
> > > > >  
> > > > > +void intel_psr_debug_control(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, bool 
> > > > > enable)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +     u32 mask;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +     /* No PSR interrupts on VLV/CHV */
> > > > > +     if (IS_VALLEYVIEW(dev_priv) || IS_CHERRYVIEW(dev_priv))
> > > > > +             return;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +     mask = EDP_PSR_POST_EXIT(TRANSCODER_EDP) |
> > > > > +            EDP_PSR_PRE_ENTRY(TRANSCODER_EDP);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +     if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 8)
> > > > > +             mask |= EDP_PSR_POST_EXIT(TRANSCODER_A) |
> > > > > +                     EDP_PSR_PRE_ENTRY(TRANSCODER_A) |
> > > > > +                     EDP_PSR_POST_EXIT(TRANSCODER_B) |
> > > > > +                     EDP_PSR_PRE_ENTRY(TRANSCODER_B) |
> > > > > +                     EDP_PSR_POST_EXIT(TRANSCODER_C) |
> > > > > +                     EDP_PSR_PRE_ENTRY(TRANSCODER_C);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +     if (enable) {
> > > > > +             WRITE_ONCE(dev_priv->psr.debug, true);
> > > > > +             I915_WRITE(EDP_PSR_IMR, I915_READ(EDP_PSR_IMR) & ~mask);
> > > > 
> > > > Why RMW?
> > > > 
> > > Avoids updating this function when new PSR error bits are added in
> > > i915_irq.c
> > 
> > The usual rule is "avoid RMW unles there is a really compelling reason
> > for it". There is none in this case AFAICS.
> > 
> > > 
> > > Would you prefer 
> > > 
> > > mask |= EDP_PSR_ERROR(TRANCODER_A) | ...  here? 
> > > 
> > > I think this has started to look ugly already. The loop was concise IMO.
> > > 
> > > The other option is to
> > > 
> > > #define HSW_PSR_INTR_DBG_MASK = 0x7
> > > #define BDW_PSR_INTR_DBG_MASK = 0x07070707 
> > 
> > Not sure what these have to do with the RMW.
> > 
> They don't, that was an alternative to the series of OR's we have to do
> to derive the mask.
> 
> 0x07070707 is the mask of all the relevant bits (error + debug). The
> above definitions could be used as 
> 
> if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) > 8)
>       mask = BDW_PSR_INTR_DBG_MASK;
> else
>       mask = HSW_PSR_INTR_DBG_MASK
> 
> 
> if (enable)
>       I915_WRITE(EDP_PSR_IMR, ~mask)
> 
> Anyway, I am not sure how you want this to be written at this point. Can
> you suggest in code what you like to see here?
> 

+       error_mask = EDP_PSR_ERROR(TRANSCODER_EDP);
+       debug_mask = error_mask | EDP_PSR_POST_EXIT(TRANSCODER_EDP) |
+                    EDP_PSR_PRE_ENTRY(TRANSCODER_EDP);
+
+       if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 8) {
+               error_mask |= EDP_PSR_ERROR(TRANSCODER_A) |
+                             EDP_PSR_ERROR(TRANSCODER_B) |
+                             EDP_PSR_ERROR(TRANSCODER_C);
+
+               debug_mask |= error_mask |
EDP_PSR_POST_EXIT(TRANSCODER_A) |
+                             EDP_PSR_PRE_ENTRY(TRANSCODER_A) |
+                             EDP_PSR_POST_EXIT(TRANSCODER_B) |
+                             EDP_PSR_PRE_ENTRY(TRANSCODER_B) |
+                             EDP_PSR_POST_EXIT(TRANSCODER_C) |
+                             EDP_PSR_PRE_ENTRY(TRANSCODER_C);
+       }

        if (enable) {
                WRITE_ONCE(dev_priv->psr.debug, true);
-               I915_WRITE(EDP_PSR_IMR, I915_READ(EDP_PSR_IMR) & ~mask);
+               I915_WRITE(EDP_PSR_IMR, ~debug_mask);
        } else {
-               I915_WRITE(EDP_PSR_IMR, I915_READ(EDP_PSR_IMR) | mask);
+               I915_WRITE(EDP_PSR_IMR, ~error_mask);
                WRITE_ONCE(dev_priv->psr.debug, false);
        }

Let me know if this is what you had in mind. Also,
dev->driver->irq_uninstall() will disable the debug interrupts. Does it
make sense to re-enable the interrupts in intel_psr_enable() if
psr.debug was still set?



> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > > +     } else {
> > > > > +             I915_WRITE(EDP_PSR_IMR, I915_READ(EDP_PSR_IMR) | mask);
> > > > > +             WRITE_ONCE(dev_priv->psr.debug, false);
> > > > > +     }
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +void intel_psr_irq_handler(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, u32 
> > > > > psr_iir)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +     u32 transcoders = BIT(TRANSCODER_EDP);
> > > > > +     enum transcoder cpu_transcoder;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +     if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 8)
> > > > > +             transcoders |= BIT(TRANSCODER_A) |
> > > > > +                            BIT(TRANSCODER_B) |
> > > > > +                            BIT(TRANSCODER_C);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +     for_each_cpu_transcoder_masked(dev_priv, cpu_transcoder, 
> > > > > transcoders) {
> > > > > +             /* FIXME: Exit PSR when this happens. */
> > > > 
> > > > Should this maybe say "retrain the link manually when this happens"?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Yeah, we should do both in fact. Makes sense to exit PSR, link train
> > > manually and keep it disabled.
> > 
> > BTW is there a hardware mechnism to inject this failure? Would be nice
> > for testing it.
> > 
> Haven't seen anything like that in bspec.
> 
> > If there is no way, maybe we could provide garbage settings for the AUX
> > stuff and that would cause the failure?
> > 
> Probably, are you aware of a way that aux failures can be triggered in
> general? We could add it as an IGT test to make sure we do get
> interrupts and handle it correctly.
> 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > > +             if (psr_iir & EDP_PSR_ERROR(cpu_transcoder))
> > > > > +                     DRM_DEBUG_KMS("[transcoder %s] PSR aux error\n",
> > > > > +                                   transcoder_name(cpu_transcoder));
> > > > > +
> > > > > +             if (psr_iir & EDP_PSR_PRE_ENTRY(cpu_transcoder))
> > > > > +                     DRM_DEBUG_KMS("[transcoder %s] PSR entry 
> > > > > attempt in 2 vblanks\n",
> > > > > +                                   transcoder_name(cpu_transcoder));
> > > > > +
> > > > > +             if (psr_iir & EDP_PSR_POST_EXIT(cpu_transcoder))
> > > > > +                     DRM_DEBUG_KMS("[transcoder %s] PSR exit 
> > > > > completed\n",
> > > > > +                                   transcoder_name(cpu_transcoder));
> > > > > +     }
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > >  static bool intel_dp_get_y_cord_status(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> > > > >  {
> > > > >       uint8_t psr_caps = 0;
> > > > > -- 
> > > > > 2.14.1
> > > > 
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Reply via email to