Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: implement EXTENDED_RECEIVER_CAPABILITY_FIELD_PRESENT
On Tue, 2018-07-17 at 15:34 -0700, Dhinakaran Pandiyan wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-07-17 at 14:49 -0700, matthew.s.atw...@intel.com wrote:
> >
> > From: Matt Atwood
> >
> > 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 0h through Fh, 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 0h through Fh 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,
> I still see 6 bytes read and 3 copied.
Ignore this, the original patch was reading 16B. Thanks for clarifying
Matt.
>
> >
> > remove incorrect check,
> > split into drm include changes into separate patch, commit message,
> > verbose debugging statements during overwrite.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Matt Atwood
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 37
> > +
> > 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > index dde92e4af5d3..364cf41a8b89 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > @@ -3738,6 +3738,43 @@ intel_dp_read_dpcd(struct intel_dp
> > *intel_dp)
> > sizeof(intel_dp->dpcd)) < 0)
> > return false; /* aux transfer failed */
> >
> > + if (intel_dp->dpcd[DP_TRAINING_AUX_RD_INTERVAL] &
> > + DP_EXTENDED_RECEIVER_CAP_FIELD_PRESENT) {
> > + uint8_t dpcd_ext[6];
> > +
> > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("DPCD: Extended Receiver Capability
> > Field Present, accessing 02200h through 022FFh\n");
> > +
> > + if (drm_dp_dpcd_read(_dp->aux,
> > DP_DP13_DPCD_REV,
> > + _ext, sizeof(dpcd_ext)) < 0)
> > + return false; /* aux transfer failed */
> > +
> > + if (memcmp(_dp->dpcd[DP_DPCD_REV],
> > _ext[DP_DPCD_REV],
> > + sizeof(u8)))
> Why use memcmp and memcmpy if it's just one byte? You could just use
> "=="
>
I believe this is what Jani suggested.
if (memcmp(old_dpcd, new_dpcd, sizeof(new_dpcd)) {
DRM_DEBUG_KMS();
memcpy(old_dpcd, new_dpcd, sizeof(new_dpcd);
}
We lose the information about which specific fields in the 6 bytes
changed, but that's okay IMO.
> >
> > {
> > + 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(_dp->dpcd[DP_DPCD_REV],
> > + _ext[DP_DPCD_REV],
> > + sizeof(u8));
> > + }
> > + if (memcmp(_dp->dpcd[DP_MAX_LINK_RATE],
> > + _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(_dp->dpcd[DP_MAX_LINK_RATE],
> > + _ext[DP_MAX_LINK_RATE],
> > sizeof(u8));
> > + }
> > + if (memcmp(_dp-
> > >
> > > dpcd[DP_DOWNSTREAMPORT_PRESENT],
> > + _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_P
> > RE
> > SENT]);
> > + memcpy(_dp-
> > >
> > > dpcd[DP_DOWNSTREAMPORT_PRESENT],
> > + _ext[DP_DOWNSTREAMPORT_PRESENT
> > ],
> > + sizeof(u8));
> > + }
> > + }
> > DRM_DEBUG_KMS("DPCD: %*ph\n", (int) sizeof(intel_dp-
> > >dpcd),
> > intel_dp->dpcd);
> >
> > return intel_dp->dpcd[DP_DPCD_REV] != 0;
___
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: implement EXTENDED_RECEIVER_CAPABILITY_FIELD_PRESENT
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 03:34:35PM -0700, Dhinakaran Pandiyan wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-07-17 at 14:49 -0700, matthew.s.atw...@intel.com wrote:
> > From: Matt Atwood
> >
> > 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 0h through Fh, 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 0h through Fh 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,
>
> I still see 6 bytes read and 3 copied.
+1
>
> > remove incorrect check,
> > split into drm include changes into separate patch, commit message,
> > verbose debugging statements during overwrite.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Matt Atwood
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 37
> > +
> > 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > index dde92e4af5d3..364cf41a8b89 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > @@ -3738,6 +3738,43 @@ intel_dp_read_dpcd(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> > sizeof(intel_dp->dpcd)) < 0)
> > return false; /* aux transfer failed */
> >
> > + if (intel_dp->dpcd[DP_TRAINING_AUX_RD_INTERVAL] &
> > + DP_EXTENDED_RECEIVER_CAP_FIELD_PRESENT) {
> > + uint8_t dpcd_ext[6];
> > +
> > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("DPCD: Extended Receiver Capability
> > Field Present, accessing 02200h through 022FFh\n");
> > +
> > + if (drm_dp_dpcd_read(_dp->aux,
> > DP_DP13_DPCD_REV,
> > + _ext, sizeof(dpcd_ext)) < 0)
> > + return false; /* aux transfer failed */
> > +
> > + if (memcmp(_dp->dpcd[DP_DPCD_REV],
> > _ext[DP_DPCD_REV],
> > + sizeof(u8)))
>
> Why use memcmp and memcmpy if it's just one byte? You could just use
> "=="
I think == should work here, but why not memcmp anyways?!
>
> > {
> > + 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(_dp->dpcd[DP_DPCD_REV],
> > + _ext[DP_DPCD_REV],
> > + sizeof(u8));
> > + }
> > + if (memcmp(_dp->dpcd[DP_MAX_LINK_RATE],
> > + _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(_dp->dpcd[DP_MAX_LINK_RATE],
> > + _ext[DP_MAX_LINK_RATE],
> > sizeof(u8));
> > + }
> > + if (memcmp(_dp-
> > >dpcd[DP_DOWNSTREAMPORT_PRESENT],
> > + _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_PRE
> > SENT]);
> > + memcpy(_dp-
> > >dpcd[DP_DOWNSTREAMPORT_PRESENT],
> > + _ext[DP_DOWNSTREAMPORT_PRESENT],
> > + sizeof(u8));
> > + }
> > + }
> > DRM_DEBUG_KMS("DPCD: %*ph\n", (int) sizeof(intel_dp->dpcd),
> > intel_dp->dpcd);
> >
> > return intel_dp->dpcd[DP_DPCD_REV] != 0;
> ___
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
___
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: implement EXTENDED_RECEIVER_CAPABILITY_FIELD_PRESENT
On Tue, 2018-07-17 at 14:49 -0700, matthew.s.atw...@intel.com wrote:
> From: Matt Atwood
>
> 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 0h through Fh, 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 0h through Fh 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,
I still see 6 bytes read and 3 copied.
> remove incorrect check,
> split into drm include changes into separate patch, commit message,
> verbose debugging statements during overwrite.
>
> Signed-off-by: Matt Atwood
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 37
> +
> 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> index dde92e4af5d3..364cf41a8b89 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> @@ -3738,6 +3738,43 @@ intel_dp_read_dpcd(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> sizeof(intel_dp->dpcd)) < 0)
> return false; /* aux transfer failed */
>
> + if (intel_dp->dpcd[DP_TRAINING_AUX_RD_INTERVAL] &
> + DP_EXTENDED_RECEIVER_CAP_FIELD_PRESENT) {
> + uint8_t dpcd_ext[6];
> +
> + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("DPCD: Extended Receiver Capability
> Field Present, accessing 02200h through 022FFh\n");
> +
> + if (drm_dp_dpcd_read(_dp->aux,
> DP_DP13_DPCD_REV,
> + _ext, sizeof(dpcd_ext)) < 0)
> + return false; /* aux transfer failed */
> +
> + if (memcmp(_dp->dpcd[DP_DPCD_REV],
> _ext[DP_DPCD_REV],
> + sizeof(u8)))
Why use memcmp and memcmpy if it's just one byte? You could just use
"=="
> {
> + 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(_dp->dpcd[DP_DPCD_REV],
> + _ext[DP_DPCD_REV],
> + sizeof(u8));
> + }
> + if (memcmp(_dp->dpcd[DP_MAX_LINK_RATE],
> + _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(_dp->dpcd[DP_MAX_LINK_RATE],
> + _ext[DP_MAX_LINK_RATE],
> sizeof(u8));
> + }
> + if (memcmp(_dp-
> >dpcd[DP_DOWNSTREAMPORT_PRESENT],
> + _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_PRE
> SENT]);
> + memcpy(_dp-
> >dpcd[DP_DOWNSTREAMPORT_PRESENT],
> + _ext[DP_DOWNSTREAMPORT_PRESENT],
> + sizeof(u8));
> + }
> + }
> DRM_DEBUG_KMS("DPCD: %*ph\n", (int) sizeof(intel_dp->dpcd),
> intel_dp->dpcd);
>
> return intel_dp->dpcd[DP_DPCD_REV] != 0;
___
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
