All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
To: matthew.s.atwood@intel.com
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: implement EXTENDED_RECEIVER_CAPABILITY_FIELD_PRESENT
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 15:19:45 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180723221944.GZ16907@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180723212735.23893-2-matthew.s.atwood@intel.com>

On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 02:27:35PM -0700, matthew.s.atwood@intel.com wrote:
> From: Matt Atwood <matthew.s.atwood@intel.com>
> 
> 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
> 
> Signed-off-by: Matt Atwood <matthew.s.atwood@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 54 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> index dde92e4af5d3..ed16b93bfe40 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> @@ -3731,6 +3731,58 @@ 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) {
> +		uint8_t dpcd_ext[6];
> +
> +		DRM_DEBUG_KMS("DPCD: Extended Receiver Capability Field Present, accessing 02200h through 022FFh\n");
> +
> +		if (drm_dp_dpcd_read(&intel_dp->aux, DP_DP13_DPCD_REV,
> +				     &dpcd_ext, sizeof(dpcd_ext)) < 0)

DRM_ERROR

> +			return;
> +
> +		if (intel_dp->dpcd[DP_DPCD_REV] > dpcd_ext[DP_DPCD_REV])

DRM_DEBUG_KMS
> +			return;

The silent skip will be hard to debug and we will never know where it went
wrong.

> +
> +		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));
> +		}
> +		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 +3790,8 @@ 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;
> -- 
> 2.17.1
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

  reply	other threads:[~2018-07-23 22:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-07-23 21:27 [PATCH 1/2] drm/dp: add extended receiver capability field present bit matthew.s.atwood
2018-07-23 21:27 ` [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: implement EXTENDED_RECEIVER_CAPABILITY_FIELD_PRESENT matthew.s.atwood
2018-07-23 22:19   ` Rodrigo Vivi [this message]
2018-07-24 16:30   ` Rodrigo Vivi
2018-07-23 21:48 ` ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for series starting with [1/2] drm/dp: add extended receiver capability field present bit Patchwork
2018-07-23 22:12 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2018-07-23 23:14 ` ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: " Patchwork
2018-07-24 16:29 ` [PATCH 1/2] " Rodrigo Vivi
2018-08-14 23:25 ` Manasi Navare
2018-08-14 23:56 ` Manasi Navare
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-07-20 16:18 matthew.s.atwood
2018-07-20 16:18 ` [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: implement EXTENDED_RECEIVER_CAPABILITY_FIELD_PRESENT matthew.s.atwood
2018-07-20 17:47   ` Rodrigo Vivi
2018-07-20 17:55   ` Manasi Navare
2018-07-17 21:49 [PATCH 1/2] drm/dp: add extended receiver capability field present bit matthew.s.atwood
2018-07-17 21:49 ` [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: implement EXTENDED_RECEIVER_CAPABILITY_FIELD_PRESENT matthew.s.atwood
2018-07-19 20:35   ` [PATCH 1/2] drm/dp: add extended receiver capability field present bit matthew.s.atwood
2018-07-19 20:35     ` [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: implement EXTENDED_RECEIVER_CAPABILITY_FIELD_PRESENT matthew.s.atwood
2018-07-19 21:07       ` Rodrigo Vivi
2018-07-19 21:47         ` Atwood, Matthew S
2018-07-19 22:06           ` Rodrigo Vivi

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20180723221944.GZ16907@intel.com \
    --to=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=matthew.s.atwood@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.