Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm: Add a new connector property for link status

From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
To: "Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	Manasi Navare <manasi.d.navare@intel.com>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm: Add a new connector property for link status
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 14:29:49 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161026132949.GQ10167@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161026131539.GE4617@intel.com>

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 04:15:39PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 02:11:00PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 02:17:16PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:51:41PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 26 Oct 2016, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 07:52:26AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > >> I'd go further and just always create this as one of the standard
> > > > >> properties (and always attach it to the connector, like edid), and only
> > > > >> expose helpers to set the link status to good or bad.
> > > > >
> > > > > One of the sketches for this idea was that this could serve as the
> > > > > failure notification path for nonblocking modesets (well modesets in
> > > > > general since it appears returning the error is not going to happen).
> > > > 
> > > > In nonblocking modesets, when should we change the status from bad to
> > > > good? If the setcrtc returns and userspace looks at link status and sees
> > > > it's still bad (because the kernel hasn't gotten around to enabling the
> > > > link yet, or whatever), userspace might think it would have to try
> > > > again. Do we set it to good immediately on setcrtc ioctl, or add a
> > > > "pending" status? Or something better?
> > > 
> > > I was thinking it'd start out as "good" and only change to something
> > > else when things actually go south.
> > > 
> > > Not sure if we should also want "off" as one of the values, for when
> > > it's really off at the request of the user.
> > 
> > That's something the user knows. At least, if the ddx has output->crtc
> > set and sees that link-status=off the response is to say "that can't be
> > me!" and reapply the desired mode, i.e. same response as if the
> > link-status was bad. Maybe useful for someone else to differentiate?
> 
> Dunno really. If we don't add it we have to define what the link status
> will indicate when the thing is really off though. With "good" and "bad"
> the only options I guess "good" would be the right answer?

Fair point.

bad = -1, (any specific error can then be -value)
ok = 0,
suspend,
standy,
off, [looking suspiciously like dpms modes :]
?
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel