[PATCH] drm/bridge: analogix: Don't return -EINVAL when panel not support PSR in PSR functions
On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 10:13 PM, Archit Taneja wrote: > > > On 12/02/2016 09:33 PM, Sean Paul wrote: >> >> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Archit Taneja >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 12/02/2016 08:02 AM, zain wang wrote: We will ignored PSR setting if panel not support it. So, in this case, we should return from analogix_dp_enable/disable_psr() without any error code. Let's retrun 0 instead of -EINVAL when panel not support PSR in analogix_dp_enable/disable_psr(). Signed-off-by: zain wang --- drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c | 6 -- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c index 6e0447f..0cb3695 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ int analogix_dp_enable_psr(struct device *dev) struct edp_vsc_psr psr_vsc; if (!dp->psr_support) - return -EINVAL; + return 0; >>> >>> >>> >>> Looking at the rockchip analogix dp code, in analogix_dp_psr_set, the >>> worker >>> that calls >>> analogix_dp_enable/disable_psr isn't even if psr isn't enabled. So, the >>> bridge funcs >>> shouldn't be called in the first place. I think the error handling is >>> fine >>> to have >>> here. >>> >> >> Hi Archit, >> >> This was my first impression, too, and the complexity of the various >> psr abstraction layers don't help :) >> >> However, this code path will be hit if the source supports psr, but >> the sink doesn't. The rockchip_drm_psr code doesn't know if the sink >> supports psr, so it will end up calling this. > > > Okay, thanks for the explanation. The dev_warn() below still seems > unnecessary, right? > Yeah, one could make a case for dev_info (disclaimer: I have a high tolerance for noisy logs), but a warning does seem excessive. Sean > Archit > > >> >> Sean >> >> /* Prepare VSC packet as per EDP 1.4 spec, Table 6.9 */ memset(_vsc, 0, sizeof(psr_vsc)); @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ int analogix_dp_disable_psr(struct device *dev) struct edp_vsc_psr psr_vsc; if (!dp->psr_support) - return -EINVAL; + return 0; /* Prepare VSC packet as per EDP 1.4 spec, Table 6.9 */ memset(_vsc, 0, sizeof(psr_vsc)); @@ -878,6 +878,8 @@ static void analogix_dp_commit(struct analogix_dp_device *dp) dp->psr_support = analogix_dp_detect_sink_psr(dp); if (dp->psr_support) analogix_dp_enable_sink_psr(dp); + else + dev_warn(dp->dev, "Sink not support PSR\n"); >>> >>> >>> >>> This doesn't seem beneficial either. There seems to be a debug >>> print already in analogix_dp_detect_sink_psr which reports PSR >>> related info. >>> >>> Archit >>> } /* >>> >>> -- >>> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, >>> a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project > > > -- > Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, > a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
[PATCH] drm/bridge: analogix: Don't return -EINVAL when panel not support PSR in PSR functions
On 12/02/2016 09:33 PM, Sean Paul wrote: > On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Archit Taneja > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 12/02/2016 08:02 AM, zain wang wrote: >>> >>> We will ignored PSR setting if panel not support it. So, in this case, we >>> should >>> return from analogix_dp_enable/disable_psr() without any error code. >>> Let's retrun 0 instead of -EINVAL when panel not support PSR in >>> analogix_dp_enable/disable_psr(). >>> >>> Signed-off-by: zain wang >>> --- >>> drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c | 6 -- >>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c >>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c >>> index 6e0447f..0cb3695 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c >>> @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ int analogix_dp_enable_psr(struct device *dev) >>> struct edp_vsc_psr psr_vsc; >>> >>> if (!dp->psr_support) >>> - return -EINVAL; >>> + return 0; >> >> >> Looking at the rockchip analogix dp code, in analogix_dp_psr_set, the worker >> that calls >> analogix_dp_enable/disable_psr isn't even if psr isn't enabled. So, the >> bridge funcs >> shouldn't be called in the first place. I think the error handling is fine >> to have >> here. >> > > Hi Archit, > > This was my first impression, too, and the complexity of the various > psr abstraction layers don't help :) > > However, this code path will be hit if the source supports psr, but > the sink doesn't. The rockchip_drm_psr code doesn't know if the sink > supports psr, so it will end up calling this. Okay, thanks for the explanation. The dev_warn() below still seems unnecessary, right? Archit > > Sean > > >>> >>> /* Prepare VSC packet as per EDP 1.4 spec, Table 6.9 */ >>> memset(_vsc, 0, sizeof(psr_vsc)); >>> @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ int analogix_dp_disable_psr(struct device *dev) >>> struct edp_vsc_psr psr_vsc; >>> >>> if (!dp->psr_support) >>> - return -EINVAL; >>> + return 0; >>> >>> /* Prepare VSC packet as per EDP 1.4 spec, Table 6.9 */ >>> memset(_vsc, 0, sizeof(psr_vsc)); >>> @@ -878,6 +878,8 @@ static void analogix_dp_commit(struct >>> analogix_dp_device *dp) >>> dp->psr_support = analogix_dp_detect_sink_psr(dp); >>> if (dp->psr_support) >>> analogix_dp_enable_sink_psr(dp); >>> + else >>> + dev_warn(dp->dev, "Sink not support PSR\n"); >> >> >> This doesn't seem beneficial either. There seems to be a debug >> print already in analogix_dp_detect_sink_psr which reports PSR >> related info. >> >> Archit >> >>> } >>> >>> /* >>> >> >> -- >> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, >> a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
[PATCH] drm/bridge: analogix: Don't return -EINVAL when panel not support PSR in PSR functions
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Archit Taneja wrote: > Hi, > > On 12/02/2016 08:02 AM, zain wang wrote: >> >> We will ignored PSR setting if panel not support it. So, in this case, we >> should >> return from analogix_dp_enable/disable_psr() without any error code. >> Let's retrun 0 instead of -EINVAL when panel not support PSR in >> analogix_dp_enable/disable_psr(). >> >> Signed-off-by: zain wang >> --- >> drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c | 6 -- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c >> index 6e0447f..0cb3695 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c >> @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ int analogix_dp_enable_psr(struct device *dev) >> struct edp_vsc_psr psr_vsc; >> >> if (!dp->psr_support) >> - return -EINVAL; >> + return 0; > > > Looking at the rockchip analogix dp code, in analogix_dp_psr_set, the worker > that calls > analogix_dp_enable/disable_psr isn't even if psr isn't enabled. So, the > bridge funcs > shouldn't be called in the first place. I think the error handling is fine > to have > here. > Hi Archit, This was my first impression, too, and the complexity of the various psr abstraction layers don't help :) However, this code path will be hit if the source supports psr, but the sink doesn't. The rockchip_drm_psr code doesn't know if the sink supports psr, so it will end up calling this. Sean >> >> /* Prepare VSC packet as per EDP 1.4 spec, Table 6.9 */ >> memset(_vsc, 0, sizeof(psr_vsc)); >> @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ int analogix_dp_disable_psr(struct device *dev) >> struct edp_vsc_psr psr_vsc; >> >> if (!dp->psr_support) >> - return -EINVAL; >> + return 0; >> >> /* Prepare VSC packet as per EDP 1.4 spec, Table 6.9 */ >> memset(_vsc, 0, sizeof(psr_vsc)); >> @@ -878,6 +878,8 @@ static void analogix_dp_commit(struct >> analogix_dp_device *dp) >> dp->psr_support = analogix_dp_detect_sink_psr(dp); >> if (dp->psr_support) >> analogix_dp_enable_sink_psr(dp); >> + else >> + dev_warn(dp->dev, "Sink not support PSR\n"); > > > This doesn't seem beneficial either. There seems to be a debug > print already in analogix_dp_detect_sink_psr which reports PSR > related info. > > Archit > >> } >> >> /* >> > > -- > Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, > a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
[PATCH] drm/bridge: analogix: Don't return -EINVAL when panel not support PSR in PSR functions
We will ignored PSR setting if panel not support it. So, in this case, we should return from analogix_dp_enable/disable_psr() without any error code. Let's retrun 0 instead of -EINVAL when panel not support PSR in analogix_dp_enable/disable_psr(). Signed-off-by: zain wang --- drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c | 6 -- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c index 6e0447f..0cb3695 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ int analogix_dp_enable_psr(struct device *dev) struct edp_vsc_psr psr_vsc; if (!dp->psr_support) - return -EINVAL; + return 0; /* Prepare VSC packet as per EDP 1.4 spec, Table 6.9 */ memset(_vsc, 0, sizeof(psr_vsc)); @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ int analogix_dp_disable_psr(struct device *dev) struct edp_vsc_psr psr_vsc; if (!dp->psr_support) - return -EINVAL; + return 0; /* Prepare VSC packet as per EDP 1.4 spec, Table 6.9 */ memset(_vsc, 0, sizeof(psr_vsc)); @@ -878,6 +878,8 @@ static void analogix_dp_commit(struct analogix_dp_device *dp) dp->psr_support = analogix_dp_detect_sink_psr(dp); if (dp->psr_support) analogix_dp_enable_sink_psr(dp); + else + dev_warn(dp->dev, "Sink not support PSR\n"); } /* -- 1.9.1
[PATCH] drm/bridge: analogix: Don't return -EINVAL when panel not support PSR in PSR functions
Hi, On 12/02/2016 08:02 AM, zain wang wrote: > We will ignored PSR setting if panel not support it. So, in this case, we > should > return from analogix_dp_enable/disable_psr() without any error code. > Let's retrun 0 instead of -EINVAL when panel not support PSR in > analogix_dp_enable/disable_psr(). > > Signed-off-by: zain wang > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c | 6 -- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c > b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c > index 6e0447f..0cb3695 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c > @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ int analogix_dp_enable_psr(struct device *dev) > struct edp_vsc_psr psr_vsc; > > if (!dp->psr_support) > - return -EINVAL; > + return 0; Looking at the rockchip analogix dp code, in analogix_dp_psr_set, the worker that calls analogix_dp_enable/disable_psr isn't even if psr isn't enabled. So, the bridge funcs shouldn't be called in the first place. I think the error handling is fine to have here. > > /* Prepare VSC packet as per EDP 1.4 spec, Table 6.9 */ > memset(_vsc, 0, sizeof(psr_vsc)); > @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ int analogix_dp_disable_psr(struct device *dev) > struct edp_vsc_psr psr_vsc; > > if (!dp->psr_support) > - return -EINVAL; > + return 0; > > /* Prepare VSC packet as per EDP 1.4 spec, Table 6.9 */ > memset(_vsc, 0, sizeof(psr_vsc)); > @@ -878,6 +878,8 @@ static void analogix_dp_commit(struct analogix_dp_device > *dp) > dp->psr_support = analogix_dp_detect_sink_psr(dp); > if (dp->psr_support) > analogix_dp_enable_sink_psr(dp); > + else > + dev_warn(dp->dev, "Sink not support PSR\n"); This doesn't seem beneficial either. There seems to be a debug print already in analogix_dp_detect_sink_psr which reports PSR related info. Archit > } > > /* > -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
