[PATCH] drm/i915: Sink CRC: tune down error message at stop to debug_kms.

[PATCH] drm/i915: Sink CRC: tune down error message at stop to debug_kms.

[Rodrigo Vivi]

When we stop the sink CRC calculation we wait a while until the counter
is reset to zero and return -ETIMEDOUT. However the sink crc was
calculated already by this point so we just ignore this return at
the main function.

So, let's also ignore the message and put it as a debug message instead
of an error one. The message might still be useful when debuging
test failures so we could be able to know something was not going so
well with sink crc stop.

Reference: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93694
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Cc: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
index c8f58ab..22f6887 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
@@ -4009,7 +4009,7 @@ static int intel_dp_sink_crc_stop(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
 	} while (--attempts && count);
 
 	if (attempts == 0) {
-		DRM_ERROR("TIMEOUT: Sink CRC counter is not zeroed\n");
+		DRM_DEBUG_KMS("TIMEOUT: Sink CRC counter is not zeroed\n");
 		ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
 	}
 
-- 
2.4.3

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

✗ warning: Fi.CI.BAT

[Patchwork]

== Summary ==

Built on 058740f8fced6851aeda34f366f5330322cd585f drm-intel-nightly: 2016y-01m-13d-17h-07m-44s UTC integration manifest

Test gem_storedw_loop:
        Subgroup basic-render:
                dmesg-warn -> PASS       (bdw-nuci7)
                pass       -> DMESG-WARN (bdw-ultra)
Test kms_flip:
        Subgroup basic-flip-vs-modeset:
                pass       -> DMESG-WARN (skl-i5k-2)
Test kms_pipe_crc_basic:
        Subgroup read-crc-pipe-b:
                pass       -> DMESG-WARN (ilk-hp8440p)

bdw-nuci7        total:138  pass:129  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:9  
bdw-ultra        total:138  pass:131  dwarn:1   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:6  
bsw-nuc-2        total:141  pass:115  dwarn:2   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:24 
hsw-brixbox      total:141  pass:134  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:7  
ilk-hp8440p      total:141  pass:99   dwarn:5   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:37 
ivb-t430s        total:135  pass:122  dwarn:3   dfail:4   fail:0   skip:6  
skl-i5k-2        total:141  pass:130  dwarn:3   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:8  
skl-i7k-2        total:141  pass:131  dwarn:2   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:8  
snb-dellxps      total:141  pass:122  dwarn:5   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:14 
snb-x220t        total:141  pass:122  dwarn:5   dfail:0   fail:1   skip:13 

Results at /archive/results/CI_IGT_test/Patchwork_1180/

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Sink CRC: tune down error message at stop to debug_kms.

[Daniel Vetter]

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 02:05:04PM -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> When we stop the sink CRC calculation we wait a while until the counter
> is reset to zero and return -ETIMEDOUT. However the sink crc was
> calculated already by this point so we just ignore this return at
> the main function.
> 
> So, let's also ignore the message and put it as a debug message instead
> of an error one. The message might still be useful when debuging
> test failures so we could be able to know something was not going so
> well with sink crc stop.
> 
> Reference: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93694
> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
> Cc: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> index c8f58ab..22f6887 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> @@ -4009,7 +4009,7 @@ static int intel_dp_sink_crc_stop(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
>  	} while (--attempts && count);
>  
>  	if (attempts == 0) {
> -		DRM_ERROR("TIMEOUT: Sink CRC counter is not zeroed\n");
> +		DRM_DEBUG_KMS("TIMEOUT: Sink CRC counter is not zeroed\n");
>  		ret = -ETIMEDOUT;

Iirc the real problem is that we even try to run the testcase with no eDP
panel present. I think fixing up the igt_require logic to correctly skip
is the right fix here, not just shutting up the kernel about it.

Or maybe the bug is that we register an edp connector when there is none?
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Sink CRC: tune down error message at stop to debug_kms.

[Zanoni, Paulo R]

Em Qua, 2016-01-13 às 14:05 -0800, Rodrigo Vivi escreveu:
> When we stop the sink CRC calculation we wait a while until the
> counter
> is reset to zero and return -ETIMEDOUT. However the sink crc was
> calculated already by this point so we just ignore this return at
> the main function.
> 
> So, let's also ignore the message and put it as a debug message
> instead
> of an error one. The message might still be useful when debuging
> test failures so we could be able to know something was not going so
> well with sink crc stop.
> Reference: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93694
> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
> Cc: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> index c8f58ab..22f6887 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> @@ -4009,7 +4009,7 @@ static int intel_dp_sink_crc_stop(struct
> intel_dp *intel_dp)
>  	} while (--attempts && count);

Now I'm wondering if "count" stays static or changes during the 10
failed attempts. I know this is against the spec, but would make some
sense to see it.

Another possibility is that we're not changing the contents of the
frame, so maybe we need to give it something new in order for the count
to really reset. This would make more sense for PSR.

Anyway, this "error" shouldn't be a problem for our test suite. If it
impacts the next CRC calculations, then we'll notice this through other
means, so:
Reviewed-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>

>  
>  	if (attempts == 0) {
> -		DRM_ERROR("TIMEOUT: Sink CRC counter is not
> zeroed\n");
> +		DRM_DEBUG_KMS("TIMEOUT: Sink CRC counter is not
> zeroed\n");
>  		ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
>  	}
>  
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Sink CRC: tune down error message at stop to debug_kms.

[Vivi, Rodrigo]

On Tue, 2016-01-19 at 17:46 +0000, Zanoni, Paulo R wrote:
> Em Qua, 2016-01-13 às 14:05 -0800, Rodrigo Vivi escreveu:
> > When we stop the sink CRC calculation we wait a while until the
> > counter
> > is reset to zero and return -ETIMEDOUT. However the sink crc was
> > calculated already by this point so we just ignore this return at
> > the main function.
> > 
> > So, let's also ignore the message and put it as a debug message
> > instead
> > of an error one. The message might still be useful when debuging
> > test failures so we could be able to know something was not going 
> > so
> > well with sink crc stop.
> > Reference: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93694
> > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
> > Cc: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > index c8f58ab..22f6887 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > @@ -4009,7 +4009,7 @@ static int intel_dp_sink_crc_stop(struct
> > intel_dp *intel_dp)
> >  	} while (--attempts && count);
> 
> Now I'm wondering if "count" stays static or changes during the 10
> failed attempts. I know this is against the spec, but would make some
> sense to see it.
> 
> Another possibility is that we're not changing the contents of the
> frame, so maybe we need to give it something new in order for the 
> count
> to really reset. This would make more sense for PSR.

Well, on the machines that sink crc isn't reliable I tried many
attempts like to change the screen content, enable and disable again,
sait more time, etc and there is no reliable way to make sure it reset
to zero. Sometimes it just keep increasing even with test zeroed... 
not following dp spec at all... 

> 
> Anyway, this "error" shouldn't be a problem for our test suite. If it
> impacts the next CRC calculations, then we'll notice this through 
> other
> means, so:
> Reviewed-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>

Thanks, but on IRC daniel had complained that the message is not good
for debug purpose. So before merging it I'd like to check with you if
it would be better with something like:

DRM_DEBUG_KMS("TIMEOUT: Sink CRC counter is not zeroed after
calculation is stopped\n");

?

> 
> >  
> >  	if (attempts == 0) {
> > -		DRM_ERROR("TIMEOUT: Sink CRC counter is not
> > zeroed\n");
> > +		DRM_DEBUG_KMS("TIMEOUT: Sink CRC counter is not
> > zeroed\n");
> >  		ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
> >  	}
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Sink CRC: tune down error message at stop to debug_kms.

[Zanoni, Paulo R]

Em Ter, 2016-01-19 às 22:21 +0000, Vivi, Rodrigo escreveu:
> On Tue, 2016-01-19 at 17:46 +0000, Zanoni, Paulo R wrote:
> > Em Qua, 2016-01-13 às 14:05 -0800, Rodrigo Vivi escreveu:
> > > When we stop the sink CRC calculation we wait a while until the
> > > counter
> > > is reset to zero and return -ETIMEDOUT. However the sink crc was
> > > calculated already by this point so we just ignore this return at
> > > the main function.
> > > 
> > > So, let's also ignore the message and put it as a debug message
> > > instead
> > > of an error one. The message might still be useful when debuging
> > > test failures so we could be able to know something was not
> > > going 
> > > so
> > > well with sink crc stop.
> > > Reference: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93694
> > > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
> > > Cc: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > > index c8f58ab..22f6887 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > > @@ -4009,7 +4009,7 @@ static int intel_dp_sink_crc_stop(struct
> > > intel_dp *intel_dp)
> > >  	} while (--attempts && count);
> > 
> > Now I'm wondering if "count" stays static or changes during the 10
> > failed attempts. I know this is against the spec, but would make
> > some
> > sense to see it.
> > 
> > Another possibility is that we're not changing the contents of the
> > frame, so maybe we need to give it something new in order for the 
> > count
> > to really reset. This would make more sense for PSR.
> 
> Well, on the machines that sink crc isn't reliable I tried many
> attempts like to change the screen content, enable and disable again,
> sait more time, etc and there is no reliable way to make sure it
> reset
> to zero. Sometimes it just keep increasing even with test zeroed... 
> not following dp spec at all... 
> 
> > 
> > Anyway, this "error" shouldn't be a problem for our test suite. If
> > it
> > impacts the next CRC calculations, then we'll notice this through 
> > other
> > means, so:
> > Reviewed-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
> 
> Thanks, but on IRC daniel had complained that the message is not good
> for debug purpose. So before merging it I'd like to check with you if
> it would be better with something like:
> 
> DRM_DEBUG_KMS("TIMEOUT: Sink CRC counter is not zeroed after
> calculation is stopped\n");

Since he's the one doing the suggestion, I'll let him answer.

> 
> ?
> 
> > 
> > >  
> > >  	if (attempts == 0) {
> > > -		DRM_ERROR("TIMEOUT: Sink CRC counter is not
> > > zeroed\n");
> > > +		DRM_DEBUG_KMS("TIMEOUT: Sink CRC counter is not
> > > zeroed\n");
> > >  		ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Sink CRC: tune down error message at stop to debug_kms.

[Daniel Vetter]

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:37:39PM +0000, Zanoni, Paulo R wrote:
> Em Ter, 2016-01-19 às 22:21 +0000, Vivi, Rodrigo escreveu:
> > On Tue, 2016-01-19 at 17:46 +0000, Zanoni, Paulo R wrote:
> > > Em Qua, 2016-01-13 às 14:05 -0800, Rodrigo Vivi escreveu:
> > > > When we stop the sink CRC calculation we wait a while until the
> > > > counter
> > > > is reset to zero and return -ETIMEDOUT. However the sink crc was
> > > > calculated already by this point so we just ignore this return at
> > > > the main function.
> > > > 
> > > > So, let's also ignore the message and put it as a debug message
> > > > instead
> > > > of an error one. The message might still be useful when debuging
> > > > test failures so we could be able to know something was not
> > > > going 
> > > > so
> > > > well with sink crc stop.
> > > > Reference: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93694
> > > > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
> > > > Cc: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 2 +-
> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > > > index c8f58ab..22f6887 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > > > @@ -4009,7 +4009,7 @@ static int intel_dp_sink_crc_stop(struct
> > > > intel_dp *intel_dp)
> > > >  	} while (--attempts && count);
> > > 
> > > Now I'm wondering if "count" stays static or changes during the 10
> > > failed attempts. I know this is against the spec, but would make
> > > some
> > > sense to see it.
> > > 
> > > Another possibility is that we're not changing the contents of the
> > > frame, so maybe we need to give it something new in order for the 
> > > count
> > > to really reset. This would make more sense for PSR.
> > 
> > Well, on the machines that sink crc isn't reliable I tried many
> > attempts like to change the screen content, enable and disable again,
> > sait more time, etc and there is no reliable way to make sure it
> > reset
> > to zero. Sometimes it just keep increasing even with test zeroed... 
> > not following dp spec at all... 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Anyway, this "error" shouldn't be a problem for our test suite. If
> > > it
> > > impacts the next CRC calculations, then we'll notice this through 
> > > other
> > > means, so:
> > > Reviewed-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
> > 
> > Thanks, but on IRC daniel had complained that the message is not good
> > for debug purpose. So before merging it I'd like to check with you if
> > it would be better with something like:
> > 
> > DRM_DEBUG_KMS("TIMEOUT: Sink CRC counter is not zeroed after
> > calculation is stopped\n");
> 
> Since he's the one doing the suggestion, I'll let him answer.

tbh I've forgotten the context of this, so probably not important. Just go
ahead with what seems fine. Either seems fine.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx