Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] drm/bridge: analogix_dp: detect Sink PSR state after configuring the PSR
From: Yakir Yang
Date: Fri Sep 09 2016 - 05:16:09 EST
On 09/08/2016 10:12 PM, Sean Paul wrote:
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 11:48 PM, Yakir Yang <ykk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Make sure the request PSR state could effect in analogix_dp_send_psr_spd()
function, or printing the error Sink PSR state if we failed to effect
the request PSR setting.
Let's change to:
Make sure the request PSR state takes effect in analogix_dp_send_psr_spd()
function, or print the sink PSR error state if we failed to apply the
requested PSR
setting.
Done,
Signed-off-by: Yakir Yang <ykk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Changes in v2:
- A bunch of good fixes from Sean
drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c | 6 ++----
drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.h | 4 ++--
drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_reg.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++--
3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c
index 5fe3982..c0ce16a 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c
@@ -116,8 +116,7 @@ int analogix_dp_enable_psr(struct device *dev)
psr_vsc.DB0 = 0;
psr_vsc.DB1 = EDP_VSC_PSR_STATE_ACTIVE | EDP_VSC_PSR_CRC_VALUES_VALID;
- analogix_dp_send_psr_spd(dp, &psr_vsc);
- return 0;
+ return analogix_dp_send_psr_spd(dp, &psr_vsc);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(analogix_dp_enable_psr);
@@ -139,8 +138,7 @@ int analogix_dp_disable_psr(struct device *dev)
psr_vsc.DB0 = 0;
psr_vsc.DB1 = 0;
- analogix_dp_send_psr_spd(dp, &psr_vsc);
- return 0;
+ return analogix_dp_send_psr_spd(dp, &psr_vsc);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(analogix_dp_disable_psr);
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.h
index a15f076..6c07a50 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.h
@@ -247,8 +247,8 @@ void analogix_dp_config_video_slave_mode(struct analogix_dp_device *dp);
void analogix_dp_enable_scrambling(struct analogix_dp_device *dp);
void analogix_dp_disable_scrambling(struct analogix_dp_device *dp);
void analogix_dp_enable_psr_crc(struct analogix_dp_device *dp);
-void analogix_dp_send_psr_spd(struct analogix_dp_device *dp,
- struct edp_vsc_psr *vsc);
+int analogix_dp_send_psr_spd(struct analogix_dp_device *dp,
+ struct edp_vsc_psr *vsc);
ssize_t analogix_dp_transfer(struct analogix_dp_device *dp,
struct drm_dp_aux_msg *msg);
#endif /* _ANALOGIX_DP_CORE_H */
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_reg.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_reg.c
index a4d17b8..09d703b 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_reg.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_reg.c
@@ -1004,10 +1004,12 @@ void analogix_dp_enable_psr_crc(struct analogix_dp_device *dp)
writel(PSR_VID_CRC_ENABLE, dp->reg_base + ANALOGIX_DP_CRC_CON);
}
-void analogix_dp_send_psr_spd(struct analogix_dp_device *dp,
- struct edp_vsc_psr *vsc)
+int analogix_dp_send_psr_spd(struct analogix_dp_device *dp,
+ struct edp_vsc_psr *vsc)
{
+ unsigned long timeout;
unsigned int val;
+ u8 sink;
/* don't send info frame */
val = readl(dp->reg_base + ANALOGIX_DP_PKT_SEND_CTL);
@@ -1048,6 +1050,25 @@ void analogix_dp_send_psr_spd(struct analogix_dp_device *dp,
val = readl(dp->reg_base + ANALOGIX_DP_PKT_SEND_CTL);
val |= IF_EN;
writel(val, dp->reg_base + ANALOGIX_DP_PKT_SEND_CTL);
+
+ timeout = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(DP_TIMEOUT_LOOP_COUNT);
Mismatched units here. DP_TIMEOUT_LOOP_COUNT is defined as number of
retries, whereas you're using it as number of ms. Fortunately, the
retry number is so high that this works out :)
In a separate patch preceding this one, can you change
DP_TIMEOUT_LOOP_COUNT to DP_TIMEOUT_LOOP_MS and alter the other
timeout loops to use time_before() like this one instead of blindly
looping 100 times? After that, you can use DP_TIMEOUT_LOOP_MS here.
Done, and after do some experiments, I found we need to set the timeout
to 300ms. Cause in some case we would take about 290ms here to get the
right psr state.
+ while (time_before(jiffies, timeout)) {
+ val = drm_dp_dpcd_readb(&dp->aux, DP_PSR_STATUS, &sink);
+ if (val != 1) {
+ dev_err(dp->dev, "PSR_STATUS read failed ret=%d", val);
+ return val;
Ok, since this is my snippet this comment is my fault, and I apologize
for that :). However, this could return 0. If drm_dp_dpcd_readb
returns 0, you probably want to retry (same as -EBUSY).
done, just return -EBUSY
+ }
+
+ if (vsc->DB1 && sink == DP_PSR_SINK_ACTIVE_RFB ||
+ !vsc->DB1 && sink == DP_PSR_SINK_INACTIVE)
+ break;
+
+ usleep_range(1000, 1500);
+ }
+
+ dev_warn(dp->dev, "Failed to effect PSR: %x", sink);
Nit: I think you want to say "PSR failed to take effect" or "Failed to
apply PSR"
Done
- Yakir
Sean
+
+ return -ETIMEDOUT;
}
ssize_t analogix_dp_transfer(struct analogix_dp_device *dp,
--
1.9.1
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html