On Tue, 2018-12-11 at 14:20 -0800, Dhinakaran Pandiyan wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-12-04 at 15:00 -0800, José Roberto de Souza wrote:
> > The value of this registers will be used to test if PSR2 is doing
> > selective update and if the number of blocks match with the
> > expected.
> > 
> > Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> > Cc: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 42
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > --
> >  1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > index 505d93b31eb6..754b33194e09 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > @@ -2760,10 +2760,44 @@ static int i915_edp_psr_status(struct
> > seq_file *m, void *data)
> >  		seq_printf(m, "Performance counter: %u\n", val);
> >  	}
> >  
> > -	if ((psr->debug & I915_PSR_DEBUG_IRQ) && !psr->psr2_enabled) {
> > -		seq_printf(m, "Last attempted entry at: %lld\n",
> > -			   psr->last_entry_attempt);
> > -		seq_printf(m, "Last exit at: %lld\n", psr->last_exit);
> > +	if (!psr->psr2_enabled) {
> > +		if (psr->debug & I915_PSR_DEBUG_IRQ) {
> > +			seq_printf(m, "Last attempted entry at:
> > %lld\n",
> > +				   psr->last_entry_attempt);
> > +			seq_printf(m, "Last exit at: %lld\n", psr-
> > > last_exit);
> > +		}
> > +	} else {
> > +		u8 i;
> > +
> > +		val = I915_READ(EDP_PSR2_SU_STATUS);
> > +		seq_printf(m, "PSR2 SU status: 0x%08x\n", val);
> > +		for (i = 0; val && i < 3; i++) {
> > +			u32 num;
> > +
> > +			num = val &
> > EDP_PSR2_SU_STATUS_NUM_SU_BLOCKS_IN_FRAME_MASK(i);
> > +			num = num >>
> > EDP_PSR2_SU_STATUS_NUM_SU_BLOCKS_IN_FRAME_SHIFT(i);
> > +			seq_printf(m, "\tSU num blocks in frame N-%u:
> > %u\n", i, num);
> > +		}
> > +
> > +		val = I915_READ(EDP_PSR2_SU_STATUS2);
> > +		seq_printf(m, "PSR2 SU status2: 0x%08x\n", val);
> > +		for (i = 0; val && i < 3; i++) {
> > +			u32 num;
> > +
> > +			num = val &
> > EDP_PSR2_SU_STATUS_NUM_SU_BLOCKS_IN_FRAME_MASK(i);
> > +			num = num >>
> > EDP_PSR2_SU_STATUS_NUM_SU_BLOCKS_IN_FRAME_SHIFT(i);
> > +			seq_printf(m, "\tSU num blocks in frame N-%u:
> > %u\n", i + 3, num);
> > +		}
> > +
> > +		val = I915_READ(EDP_PSR2_SU_STATUS3);
> > +		seq_printf(m, "PSR2 SU status3: 0x%08x\n", val);
> > +		for (i = 0; val && i < 2; i++) {
> > +			u32 num;
> > +
> > +			num = val &
> > EDP_PSR2_SU_STATUS_NUM_SU_BLOCKS_IN_FRAME_MASK(i);
> > +			num = num >>
> > EDP_PSR2_SU_STATUS_NUM_SU_BLOCKS_IN_FRAME_SHIFT(i);
> > +			seq_printf(m, "\tSU num blocks in frame N-%u:
> > %u\n", i + 6, num);
> nitpick: Have you considered reducing the text that's getting printed
> here? I guess we might not need to increase the read buffer size in
> IGT
> if we do some thing like this. 
> 
> Frame	SU blocks
> 0	f
> 1	o
> 2	o
> ....
> 
> I'll leave it to you if you want to change, but I do prefer making
> this
> less verbose.

Down to this:

Sink support: yes [0x03]
PSR mode: PSR2 enabled
Source PSR ctl: enabled [0xc2000216]
Source PSR status: CAPTURE [0x14080030]
Busy frontbuffer bits: 0x00000000
Frame:  PSR2 SU blocks:
0       0
1       0
2       0
3       0
4       0
5       0
6       0
7       0

I will just check if the SU blocks are easy to parse from IGT tests.

> 
> > +		}
> >  	}
> >  
> >  unlock: