On Thu, 13 Sep 2018, [email protected] wrote:
> From: Matt Atwood <[email protected]>
>
> According to DP spec (2.9.3.1 of DP 1.4) if
> EXTENDED_RECEIVER_CAPABILITY_FIELD_PRESENT is set the addresses in DPCD
> 02200h through 0220Fh shall contain the DPRX's true capability. These
> values will match 00000h through 0000Fh, except for DPCD_REV,
> MAX_LINK_RATE, DOWN_STREAM_PORT_PRESENT.
>
> Read from DPCD once for all 3 values as this is an expensive operation.
> Spec mentions that all of address space 02200h through 0220Fh should
> contain the right information however currently only 3 values can
> differ.
>
> There is no address space in the intel_dp->dpcd struct for addresses
> 02200h through 0220Fh, and since so much of the data is a identical,
> simply overwrite the values stored in 00000h through 0000Fh with the
> values that can be overwritten from addresses 02200h through 0220Fh.
>
> This patch helps with backward compatibility for devices pre DP1.3.
>
> v2: read only dpcd values which can be affected, remove incorrect check,
> split into drm include changes into separate patch, commit message,
> verbose debugging statements during overwrite.
> v3: white space fixes
> v4: make path dependent on DPCD revision > 1.2
> v5: split into function, removed DPCD rev check
> v6: add debugging prints for early exit conditions
>
> Signed-off-by: Matt Atwood <[email protected]>

So I did the backmerge to get the DP_EXTENDED_RECEIVER_CAP_FIELD_PRESENT
to dinq, and was about to merge... but I gotta nitpick here.

> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 58 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> index dde92e4af5d3..1190635e4135 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> @@ -3731,6 +3731,62 @@ intel_dp_link_down(struct intel_encoder *encoder,
>       }
>  }
>  
> +static void
> +intel_dp_extended_receiver_capabilities(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> +{
> +     /*
> +      * Prior to DP1.3 the bit represented by
> +      * DP_EXTENDED_RECEIVER_CAP_FIELD_PRESENT was reserved.
> +      * if it is set DP_DPCD_REV at 0000h could be at a value less than
> +      * the true capability of the panel. The only way to check is to
> +      * then compare 0000h and 2200h.
> +      */
> +     if (intel_dp->dpcd[DP_TRAINING_AUX_RD_INTERVAL] &
> +         DP_EXTENDED_RECEIVER_CAP_FIELD_PRESENT) {

Reverse the condition, early exit, and make the rest of the function so
much easier to read by decreasing indent.

> +             uint8_t dpcd_ext[6];

u8

> +
> +             DRM_DEBUG_KMS("DPCD: Extended Receiver Capability Field 
> Present, accessing 02200h through 022FFh\n");

Logging the offsets is excessive.

> +
> +             if (drm_dp_dpcd_read(&intel_dp->aux, DP_DP13_DPCD_REV,
> +                                  &dpcd_ext, sizeof(dpcd_ext)) < 0) {

!= sizeof(dpcd_ext) is more accurate.

> +                     DRM_ERROR("DPCD failed read at extended 
> capabilities\n");
> +                     return;
> +             }
> +
> +             if (intel_dp->dpcd[DP_DPCD_REV] > dpcd_ext[DP_DPCD_REV]) {
> +                     DRM_DEBUG_KMS("DPCD extended DPCD rev less than base 
> DPCD rev\n");
> +                     return;
> +             }
> +
> +             if (memcmp(&intel_dp->dpcd[DP_DPCD_REV], &dpcd_ext[DP_DPCD_REV],
> +                        sizeof(u8))) {
> +                     DRM_DEBUG_KMS("DPCD: new value for DPCD Revision 
> previous value %2x new value %2x\n",
> +                                   intel_dp->dpcd[DP_DPCD_REV],
> +                                   dpcd_ext[DP_DPCD_REV]);
> +                     memcpy(&intel_dp->dpcd[DP_DPCD_REV],
> +                            &dpcd_ext[DP_DPCD_REV], sizeof(u8));
> +             }

I presume earlier versions of the patch had memcmp/memcpy on the whole
dpcd_ext, but if for some reason not present in the changelog you really
need to do this piecemeal, please do not use memcmp/memcpy on
sizeof(u8)! Ditto below.

BR,
Jani.

> +             if (memcmp(&intel_dp->dpcd[DP_MAX_LINK_RATE],
> +                        &dpcd_ext[DP_MAX_LINK_RATE], sizeof(u8))) {
> +                     DRM_DEBUG_KMS("DPCD: new value for DPCD Max Link Rate 
> previous value %2x new value %2x\n",
> +                                   intel_dp->dpcd[DP_MAX_LINK_RATE],
> +                                   dpcd_ext[DP_MAX_LINK_RATE]);
> +                     memcpy(&intel_dp->dpcd[DP_MAX_LINK_RATE],
> +                            &dpcd_ext[DP_MAX_LINK_RATE], sizeof(u8));
> +             }
> +             if (memcmp(&intel_dp->dpcd[DP_DOWNSTREAMPORT_PRESENT],
> +                        &dpcd_ext[DP_DOWNSTREAMPORT_PRESENT], sizeof(u8))) {
> +                     DRM_DEBUG_KMS("DPCD: new value for DPCD Downstream Port 
> Present  previous value %2x new value %2x\n",
> +                                   intel_dp->dpcd[DP_DOWNSTREAMPORT_PRESENT],
> +                                   dpcd_ext[DP_DOWNSTREAMPORT_PRESENT]);
> +                     memcpy(&intel_dp->dpcd[DP_DOWNSTREAMPORT_PRESENT],
> +                            &dpcd_ext[DP_DOWNSTREAMPORT_PRESENT],
> +                            sizeof(u8));
> +             }
> +     }
> +}
> +
> +
>  bool
>  intel_dp_read_dpcd(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
>  {
> @@ -3738,6 +3794,8 @@ intel_dp_read_dpcd(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
>                            sizeof(intel_dp->dpcd)) < 0)
>               return false; /* aux transfer failed */
>  
> +     intel_dp_extended_receiver_capabilities(intel_dp);
> +
>       DRM_DEBUG_KMS("DPCD: %*ph\n", (int) sizeof(intel_dp->dpcd), 
> intel_dp->dpcd);
>  
>       return intel_dp->dpcd[DP_DPCD_REV] != 0;

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Reply via email to