Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/msm/dp: service only one irq_hpd if there are multiple irq_hpd pending

[khsieh@codeaurora.org]

On 2021-04-29 20:11, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting khsieh@codeaurora.org (2021-04-29 10:23:31)
>> On 2021-04-29 02:26, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> > Quoting khsieh@codeaurora.org (2021-04-28 10:38:11)
>> >> On 2021-04-27 17:00, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> >> > Quoting aravindh@codeaurora.org (2021-04-21 11:55:21)
>> >> >> On 2021-04-21 10:26, khsieh@codeaurora.org wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>> +
>> >> >> >>>         mutex_unlock(&dp->event_mutex);
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>         return 0;
>> >> >> >>> @@ -1496,6 +1502,9 @@ int msm_dp_display_disable(struct msm_dp *dp,
>> >> >> >>> struct drm_encoder *encoder)
>> >> >> >>>         /* stop sentinel checking */
>> >> >> >>>         dp_del_event(dp_display, EV_DISCONNECT_PENDING_TIMEOUT);
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> +       /* link is down, delete pending irq_hdps */
>> >> >> >>> +       dp_del_event(dp_display, EV_IRQ_HPD_INT);
>> >> >> >>> +
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I'm becoming convinced that the whole kthread design and event queue
>> >> >> >> is
>> >> >> >> broken. These sorts of patches are working around the larger problem
>> >> >> >> that the kthread is running independently of the driver and irqs can
>> >> >> >> come in at any time but the event queue is not checked from the irq
>> >> >> >> handler to debounce the irq event. Is the event queue necessary at
>> >> >> >> all?
>> >> >> >> I wonder if it would be simpler to just use an irq thread and process
>> >> >> >> the hpd signal from there. Then we're guaranteed to not get an irq
>> >> >> >> again
>> >> >> >> until the irq thread is done processing the event. This would
>> >> >> >> naturally
>> >> >> >> debounce the irq hpd event that way.
>> >> >> > event q just like bottom half of irq handler. it turns irq into event
>> >> >> > and handle them sequentially.
>> >> >> > irq_hpd is asynchronous event from panel to bring up attention of hsot
>> >> >> > during run time of operation.
>> >> >> > Here, the dongle is unplugged and main link had teared down so that no
>> >> >> > need to service pending irq_hpd if any.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> As Kuogee mentioned, IRQ_HPD is a message received from the panel and
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> not like your typical HW generated IRQ. There is no guarantee that we
>> >> >> will not receive an IRQ_HPD until we are finished with processing of
>> >> >> an
>> >> >> earlier HPD message or an IRQ_HPD message. For example - when you run
>> >> >> the protocol compliance, when we get a HPD from the sink, we are
>> >> >> expected to start reading DPCD, EDID and proceed with link training.
>> >> >> As
>> >> >> soon as link training is finished (which is marked by a specific DPCD
>> >> >> register write), the sink is going to issue an IRQ_HPD. At this point,
>> >> >> we may not done with processing the HPD high as after link training we
>> >> >> would typically notify the user mode of the newly connected display,
>> >> >> etc.
> 
> I re-read this. I think you're saying that IRQ_HPD can come in after 
> HPD
> goes high and we finish link training? That sounds like we should 
> enable
> IRQ_HPD in the hardware once we finish link training, instead of having
> it enabled all the time. Then we can finish the threaded irq handler 
> and
> the irq should be pending again once IRQ_HPD is sent over. Is there 
> ever
> a need to be processing some IRQ_HPD and then get another IRQ_HPD while
> processing the first one?
yes, for example
1) plug dongle only
2) plug hdmi monitor into dongle (generated irq_hpd with sinc_count = 1)
3) unplug hdmi monitor out of the dongle (generate irq_hpd with 
sinc_count = 0)
4) go back to 2) for n times
5) unplug dongle

This patch is not fix this problem either.
The existing code has major issue which is handle irq_hpd with 
sink_count = 0 same way as handle of dongle unplugged.
I think this cause external dp display failed to work and cause crash at 
suspend/resume test case.
I will drop this patch.
I am working on handle irq_hpd with sink_count = 0 as asymmetric as 
opposite to  irq_hpd with sink_count = 1.
This means irq_hdp sink_count = 0 handle only tear down the main link 
but keep phy/aux intact.
I will re submit patch for review.


> 
>> >> >
>> >> > Given that the irq comes in and is then forked off to processing at a
>> >> > later time implies that IRQ_HPD can come in at practically anytime.
>> >> > Case
>> >> > in point, this patch, which is trying to selectively search through the
>> >> > "event queue" and then remove the event that is no longer relevant
>> >> > because the display is being turned off either by userspace or because
>> >> > HPD has gone away. If we got rid of the queue and kthread and processed
>> >> > irqs in a threaded irq handler I suspect the code would be simpler and
>> >> > not have to search through an event queue when we disable the display.
>> >> > Instead while disabling the display we would make sure that the irq
>> >> > thread isn't running anymore with synchronize_irq() or even disable the
>> >> > irq entirely, but really it would be better to just disable the irq in
>> >> > the hardware with a register write to some irq mask register.
>> >> >
>> >> > This pushes more of the logic for HPD and connect/disconnect into the
>> >> > hardware and avoids reimplementing that in software: searching through
>> >> > the queue, checking for duplicate events, etc.
>> >>
>> >> I wish we can implemented as you suggested. but it more complicate
>> >> than
>> >> that.
>> >> Let me explain below,
>> >> we have 3 transactions defined as below,
>> >>
>> >> plugin transaction: irq handle do host dp ctrl initialization and link
>> >> training. If sink_count = 0 or link train failed, then transaction
>> >> ended. otherwise send display up uevent to frame work and wait for
>> >> frame
>> >> work thread to do mode set, start pixel clock and start video to end
>> >> transaction.
>> >
>> > Why do we need to wait for userspace to start video? HPD is indicating
>> > that we have something connected, so shouldn't we merely signal to
>> > userspace that something is ready to display and then enable the irq
>> > for
>> > IRQ_HPD?
>> >
>> yes, it is correct.
>> The problem is unplug happen after signal user space.
>> if unplug happen before user space start mode set and video, then it 
>> can
>> just do nothing and return.
>> but if unplugged happen at the middle of user space doing mode set and
>> start video?
> 
> I expect the link training to fail, maybe slowly, but userspace should
> still be notified that the state has changed to disconnected when the
> irq comes in, around the same time that the cable is physically
> disconnected.
> 
>> 
>> remember we had run into problem system show in connect state when
>> dongle unplugged, vice versa.
>> 
> 
> These problems are still happening as far as I can tell. I've heard
> reports that external panels are showing up as connected when no dongle
> is there, implying that HPD handling is broken.
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> >>
>> >> unplugged transaction: irq handle send display off uevent to frame
>> >> work and wait for frame work to disable pixel clock ,tear down main
>> >> link and dp ctrl host de initialization.
>> >
>> > What do we do if userspace is slow and doesn't disable the display
>> > before the cable is physically plugged in again?
>> >
>> plugin is not handle (re enter back into event q) until unplugged 
>> handle
>> completed.
>> >>
>> >> irq_hpd transaction: This only happen after plugin transaction and
>> >> before unplug transaction. irq handle read panel dpcd register and
>> >> perform requesting action. Action including perform dp compliant
>> >> phy/link testing.
>> >>
>> >> since dongle can be plugged/unplugged at ant time, three conditions
>> >> have
>> >> to be met to avoid race condition,
>> >> 1) no irq lost
>> >> 2) irq happen timing order enforced at execution
>> >> 3) no irq handle done in the middle transaction
>> >>
>> >> for example we do not want to see
>> >> plugin --> unplug --> plugin --> unplug become plugin --> plugin-->
>> >> unplug
>> >>
>> >> The purpose of this patch is to not handle pending irq_hpd after
>> >> either
>> >> dongle or monitor had been unplugged until next plug in.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I'm not suggesting to block irq handling entirely for long running
>> > actions. A plug irq due to HPD could still notify userspace that the
>> > display is connected but when an IRQ_HPD comes in we process it in the
>> > irq thread instead of trying to figure out what sort of action is
>> > necessary to quickly fork it off to a kthread to process later.
>> >
>> > The problem seems to be that this quick forking off of the real IRQ_HPD
>> > processing is letting the event come in, and then an unplug to come in
>> > after that, and then a plug in to come in after that, leading to the
>> > event queue getting full of events that are no longer relevant but
>> > still
>> > need to be processed. If this used a workqueue instead of an open-coded
>> > one, I'd say we should cancel any work items on the queue if an unplug
>> > irq came in. That way we would make sure that we're not trying to do
>> > anything with the link when it isn't present anymore.
>> >
>> is this same as we delete irq_hpd from event q?
>> What happen if the workqueue had been launched?
> 
> Yes workqueues are basically functions you run on a kthread with 
> various
> ways to either make sure that the work has finished processing or to 
> try
> to cancel it out so that it either doesn't run at all because the
> kthread hasn't picked it up or that it runs to completion before
> continuing. The event queue should be replaced with a workqueue design,
> but even better would be to use a threaded irq if possible so that
> hardware can't raise more irqs while one is being handled.
> 
>> 
>> > But even then it doesn't make much sense. Userspace could be heavily
>> > delayed after the plug in irq, when HPD is asserted, and not display
>> > anything. The user could physically unplug and plug during that time so
>> > we really need to not wait at all or do anything besides note the state
>> > of the HPD when this happens. The IRQ_HPD irq is different. I don't
>> > think we care to keep getting them if we're not done processing the
>> > previous irq. I view it as basically an "edge" irq that we see,
>> > process,
>> > and then if another one comes in during the processing time we ignore
>> > it. There's only so much we can do, hence the suggestion to use a
>> > threaded irq.
>> >
>> I do not think you can ignore irq_hpd.
>> for example, you connect hdmi monitor to dongle then plug in dongle 
>> into
>> DUT and unplug hdmi monitor immediatly.
>> DP driver will see plugin irq with sink_count=1 followed by irq_hpd 
>> with
>> sink_count= 0.
>> Then we may end up you think it is in connect state but actually it
>> shold be in disconnect state.
> 
> Yes I'm saying that we should be able to use the hardware to coalesce
> multiple IRQ_HPDs so that we don't unmask the IRQ_HPD until a connect
> irq tells us a cable is connected, and then we mask IRQ_HPD when a
> disconnect irq happens, and ignore extra IRQ_HPDs by processing the
> IRQ_HPD in a threaded irq handler.
> 
> Maybe this can't work because the same hardware irq is used for the HPD
> high/low and IRQ_HPD? If that's true, we should be able to keep the
> IRQ_HPD masked until the event is processed by calling
> dp_catalog_hpd_config_intr() to disable DP_DP_IRQ_HPD_INT_MASK when we
> see it in the irq handler and only enable the irq again once we've
> processed it, which I guess would be the end of dp_irq_hpd_handle()?
> 
>> I do not think we can ignore irq_hpd but combine multiple irq_hpd into
>> one and handle it.
>> 
>> 
>> > This is why IRQ_HPD is yanking the HPD line down to get the attention
>> > of
>> > the source, but HPD high and HPD low for an extended period of time
>> > means the cable has been plugged or unplugged. We really do care if the
>> > line goes low for a long time, but if it only temporarily goes low for
>> > an IRQ_HPD then we either saw it or we didn't have time to process it
>> > yet.
>> >
>> > It's like a person at your door ringing the doorbell. They're there
>> > (HPD
>> > high), and they're ringing the doorbell over and over (IRQ_HPD) and
>> > eventually they go away when you don't answer (HPD low). We don't have
>> > to keep track of every single doorbell/IRQ_HPD event because it's
>> > mostly
>> > a ping from the sink telling us we need to go do something, i.e. a
>> > transitory event. The IRQ_HPD should always work once HPD is there, but
>> > once HPD is gone we should mask it and ignore that irq until we see an
>> > HPD high again.
>> 
>> if amazon deliver ring the door bell 3 times, then we answer the door 
>> at
>> the third time. this mean the first and second door bell ring can be
>> ignored.
>> Also if door bell ring 3 times and left an package at door then 
>> deliver
>> left, you saw deliver left form window then you still need to answer 
>> to
>> find out there is package left at door. If you ignore doorbell, then 
>> you
>> will missed the package.
> 
> There isn't a package being left at the door. When HPD goes away,
> there's nothing to do anymore. Stop going to the door to look for
> anything. Maybe a better analogy is that the entire door and doorbell 
> is
> gone when HPD goes away.
> 
>> 
>> 
>> I believe both thread_irq and event q works.
>> But I think event q give us more finer controller.
> 
> What sort of finer control? Opinions need supporting facts or they're
> just opinions.
> 
>> We are trying to fix an extreme case which generate un expected number
>> of irq_hpd at an unexpected timing.
>> I believe other dp driver (not Qcom) will also failed on this 
>> particular
>> case.
>> 
> 
> I don't understand why that matters. This driver being just as bad as
> other drivers isn't a good quality.
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel