| Message ID | 1437694550-5667-6-git-send-email-rodrigo.vivi@intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 04:35:50PM -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > By Vesa DP 1.2 spec TEST_CRC_COUNT is a "4 bit wrap counter which > increments each time the TEST_CRC_x_x are updated." > > However if we are trying to verify the screen hasn't changed we get > same (count, crc) pair twice. Without this patch we would return > -ETIMEOUT in this case. > > So, if in 6 vblanks the pair (count, crc) hasn't changed we > return it anyway instead of returning error and let test case decide > if it was right or not. > > Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com> Looks good. > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 21 +++++++++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c > index c7372a1..e99ec7a 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c > @@ -4028,6 +4028,7 @@ int intel_dp_sink_crc(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, u8 *crc) > u8 buf; > int count, ret; > int attempts = 6; > + bool old_equal_new; > > ret = intel_dp_sink_crc_start(intel_dp); > if (ret) > @@ -4042,6 +4043,7 @@ int intel_dp_sink_crc(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, u8 *crc) > goto stop; > } > count = buf & DP_TEST_COUNT_MASK; > + > /* > * Count might be reset during the loop. In this case > * last known count needs to be reset as well. > @@ -4053,17 +4055,24 @@ int intel_dp_sink_crc(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, u8 *crc) > ret = -EIO; > goto stop; > } > - } while (--attempts && (count == 0 || (count == intel_dp->sink_crc.last_count && > - !memcmp(intel_dp->sink_crc.last_crc, crc, > - 6 * sizeof(u8))))); > + > + old_equal_new = (count == intel_dp->sink_crc.last_count && > + !memcmp(intel_dp->sink_crc.last_crc, crc, > + 6 * sizeof(u8))); > + > + } while (--attempts && (count == 0 || old_equal_new)); > > intel_dp->sink_crc.last_count = buf & DP_TEST_COUNT_MASK; > memcpy(intel_dp->sink_crc.last_crc, crc, 6 * sizeof(u8)); > > if (attempts == 0) { > - DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Panel is unable to calculate CRC after 6 vblanks\n"); > - ret = -ETIMEDOUT; > - goto stop; > + if (old_equal_new) { > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Unreliable Sink CRC counter: Current returned CRC is identical to the previous one\n"); Isn't this line a little too long? > + } else { > + DRM_ERROR("Panel is unable to calculate any CRC after 6 vblanks\n"); > + ret = -ETIMEDOUT; > + goto stop; > + } > } > > stop: > -- > 2.1.0 > > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
On Tue, 2015-07-28 at 13:25 -0700, Rafael Antognolli wrote: > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 04:35:50PM -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > > By Vesa DP 1.2 spec TEST_CRC_COUNT is a "4 bit wrap counter which > > increments each time the TEST_CRC_x_x are updated." > > > > However if we are trying to verify the screen hasn't changed we get > > same (count, crc) pair twice. Without this patch we would return > > -ETIMEOUT in this case. > > > > So, if in 6 vblanks the pair (count, crc) hasn't changed we > > return it anyway instead of returning error and let test case decide > > if it was right or not. > > > > Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com> > > Looks good. > > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 21 +++++++++++++++------ > > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c > > index c7372a1..e99ec7a 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c > > @@ -4028,6 +4028,7 @@ int intel_dp_sink_crc(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, u8 *crc) > > u8 buf; > > int count, ret; > > int attempts = 6; > > + bool old_equal_new; > > > > ret = intel_dp_sink_crc_start(intel_dp); > > if (ret) > > @@ -4042,6 +4043,7 @@ int intel_dp_sink_crc(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, u8 *crc) > > goto stop; > > } > > count = buf & DP_TEST_COUNT_MASK; > > + > > /* > > * Count might be reset during the loop. In this case > > * last known count needs to be reset as well. > > @@ -4053,17 +4055,24 @@ int intel_dp_sink_crc(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, u8 *crc) > > ret = -EIO; > > goto stop; > > } > > - } while (--attempts && (count == 0 || (count == intel_dp->sink_crc.last_count && > > - !memcmp(intel_dp->sink_crc.last_crc, crc, > > - 6 * sizeof(u8))))); > > + > > + old_equal_new = (count == intel_dp->sink_crc.last_count && > > + !memcmp(intel_dp->sink_crc.last_crc, crc, > > + 6 * sizeof(u8))); > > + > > + } while (--attempts && (count == 0 || old_equal_new)); > > > > intel_dp->sink_crc.last_count = buf & DP_TEST_COUNT_MASK; > > memcpy(intel_dp->sink_crc.last_crc, crc, 6 * sizeof(u8)); > > > > if (attempts == 0) { > > - DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Panel is unable to calculate CRC after 6 vblanks\n"); > > - ret = -ETIMEDOUT; > > - goto stop; > > + if (old_equal_new) { > > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Unreliable Sink CRC counter: Current returned CRC is identical to the previous one\n"); > > Isn't this line a little too long? I agree, but I had no idea how to make it shorter. I believe this long debug message is the only case where we can go over 80 characters in i915. but if it isn't true and/or have a suggestion how to make it shorter please let me know that I can change. > > > + } else { > > + DRM_ERROR("Panel is unable to calculate any CRC after 6 vblanks\n"); > > + ret = -ETIMEDOUT; > > + goto stop; > > + } > > } > > > > stop: > > -- > > 2.1.0 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Intel-gfx mailing list > > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 10:05:21PM +0000, Vivi, Rodrigo wrote: > On Tue, 2015-07-28 at 13:25 -0700, Rafael Antognolli wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 04:35:50PM -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > > > By Vesa DP 1.2 spec TEST_CRC_COUNT is a "4 bit wrap counter which > > > increments each time the TEST_CRC_x_x are updated." > > > > > > However if we are trying to verify the screen hasn't changed we get > > > same (count, crc) pair twice. Without this patch we would return > > > -ETIMEOUT in this case. > > > > > > So, if in 6 vblanks the pair (count, crc) hasn't changed we > > > return it anyway instead of returning error and let test case decide > > > if it was right or not. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com> > > > > Looks good. > > > > > --- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 21 +++++++++++++++------ > > > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c > > > index c7372a1..e99ec7a 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c > > > @@ -4028,6 +4028,7 @@ int intel_dp_sink_crc(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, u8 *crc) > > > u8 buf; > > > int count, ret; > > > int attempts = 6; > > > + bool old_equal_new; > > > > > > ret = intel_dp_sink_crc_start(intel_dp); > > > if (ret) > > > @@ -4042,6 +4043,7 @@ int intel_dp_sink_crc(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, u8 *crc) > > > goto stop; > > > } > > > count = buf & DP_TEST_COUNT_MASK; > > > + > > > /* > > > * Count might be reset during the loop. In this case > > > * last known count needs to be reset as well. > > > @@ -4053,17 +4055,24 @@ int intel_dp_sink_crc(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, u8 *crc) > > > ret = -EIO; > > > goto stop; > > > } > > > - } while (--attempts && (count == 0 || (count == intel_dp->sink_crc.last_count && > > > - !memcmp(intel_dp->sink_crc.last_crc, crc, > > > - 6 * sizeof(u8))))); > > > + > > > + old_equal_new = (count == intel_dp->sink_crc.last_count && > > > + !memcmp(intel_dp->sink_crc.last_crc, crc, > > > + 6 * sizeof(u8))); > > > + > > > + } while (--attempts && (count == 0 || old_equal_new)); > > > > > > intel_dp->sink_crc.last_count = buf & DP_TEST_COUNT_MASK; > > > memcpy(intel_dp->sink_crc.last_crc, crc, 6 * sizeof(u8)); > > > > > > if (attempts == 0) { > > > - DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Panel is unable to calculate CRC after 6 vblanks\n"); > > > - ret = -ETIMEDOUT; > > > - goto stop; > > > + if (old_equal_new) { > > > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Unreliable Sink CRC counter: Current returned CRC is identical to the previous one\n"); > > > > Isn't this line a little too long? > > I agree, but I had no idea how to make it shorter. I believe this long > debug message is the only case where we can go over 80 characters in > i915. but if it isn't true and/or have a suggestion how to make it > shorter please let me know that I can change. dmesg output is explicitly an exception since breaking lines makes it much harder to grep for a line you spot in dmesg. Ofc 500 lines would be a bit too much, we're breaking those. But this one here is totally fine. Remember, checkpatch is just suggestions mostly, not law. -Daniel > > > > > > + } else { > > > + DRM_ERROR("Panel is unable to calculate any CRC after 6 vblanks\n"); > > > + ret = -ETIMEDOUT; > > > + goto stop; > > > + } > > > } > > > > > > stop: > > > -- > > > 2.1.0 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Intel-gfx mailing list > > > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx > > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:26:53AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 10:05:21PM +0000, Vivi, Rodrigo wrote: > > On Tue, 2015-07-28 at 13:25 -0700, Rafael Antognolli wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 04:35:50PM -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > > > > By Vesa DP 1.2 spec TEST_CRC_COUNT is a "4 bit wrap counter which > > > > increments each time the TEST_CRC_x_x are updated." > > > > > > > > However if we are trying to verify the screen hasn't changed we get > > > > same (count, crc) pair twice. Without this patch we would return > > > > -ETIMEOUT in this case. > > > > > > > > So, if in 6 vblanks the pair (count, crc) hasn't changed we > > > > return it anyway instead of returning error and let test case decide > > > > if it was right or not. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com> > > > > > > Looks good. > > > > > > > --- > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 21 +++++++++++++++------ > > > > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c > > > > index c7372a1..e99ec7a 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c > > > > @@ -4028,6 +4028,7 @@ int intel_dp_sink_crc(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, u8 *crc) > > > > u8 buf; > > > > int count, ret; > > > > int attempts = 6; > > > > + bool old_equal_new; > > > > > > > > ret = intel_dp_sink_crc_start(intel_dp); > > > > if (ret) > > > > @@ -4042,6 +4043,7 @@ int intel_dp_sink_crc(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, u8 *crc) > > > > goto stop; > > > > } > > > > count = buf & DP_TEST_COUNT_MASK; > > > > + > > > > /* > > > > * Count might be reset during the loop. In this case > > > > * last known count needs to be reset as well. > > > > @@ -4053,17 +4055,24 @@ int intel_dp_sink_crc(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, u8 *crc) > > > > ret = -EIO; > > > > goto stop; > > > > } > > > > - } while (--attempts && (count == 0 || (count == intel_dp->sink_crc.last_count && > > > > - !memcmp(intel_dp->sink_crc.last_crc, crc, > > > > - 6 * sizeof(u8))))); > > > > + > > > > + old_equal_new = (count == intel_dp->sink_crc.last_count && > > > > + !memcmp(intel_dp->sink_crc.last_crc, crc, > > > > + 6 * sizeof(u8))); > > > > + > > > > + } while (--attempts && (count == 0 || old_equal_new)); > > > > > > > > intel_dp->sink_crc.last_count = buf & DP_TEST_COUNT_MASK; > > > > memcpy(intel_dp->sink_crc.last_crc, crc, 6 * sizeof(u8)); > > > > > > > > if (attempts == 0) { > > > > - DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Panel is unable to calculate CRC after 6 vblanks\n"); > > > > - ret = -ETIMEDOUT; > > > > - goto stop; > > > > + if (old_equal_new) { > > > > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Unreliable Sink CRC counter: Current returned CRC is identical to the previous one\n"); > > > > > > Isn't this line a little too long? > > > > I agree, but I had no idea how to make it shorter. I believe this long > > debug message is the only case where we can go over 80 characters in > > i915. but if it isn't true and/or have a suggestion how to make it > > shorter please let me know that I can change. > > dmesg output is explicitly an exception since breaking lines makes it much > harder to grep for a line you spot in dmesg. Ofc 500 lines would be a bit > too much, we're breaking those. But this one here is totally fine. Nice, I never thought about being able to grep, but makes total sense. > Remember, checkpatch is just suggestions mostly, not law. I wasn't aware of it, but good to know that it exists. I'll check it out. Reviewed-by: Rafael Antognolli <rafael.antognolli@intel.com> > > > > > > > > > + } else { > > > > + DRM_ERROR("Panel is unable to calculate any CRC after 6 vblanks\n"); > > > > + ret = -ETIMEDOUT; > > > > + goto stop; > > > > + } > > > > } > > > > > > > > stop: > > > > -- > > > > 2.1.0 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Intel-gfx mailing list > > > > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > > > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Intel-gfx mailing list > > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx > > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > http://blog.ffwll.ch
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c index c7372a1..e99ec7a 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c @@ -4028,6 +4028,7 @@ int intel_dp_sink_crc(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, u8 *crc) u8 buf; int count, ret; int attempts = 6; + bool old_equal_new; ret = intel_dp_sink_crc_start(intel_dp); if (ret) @@ -4042,6 +4043,7 @@ int intel_dp_sink_crc(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, u8 *crc) goto stop; } count = buf & DP_TEST_COUNT_MASK; + /* * Count might be reset during the loop. In this case * last known count needs to be reset as well. @@ -4053,17 +4055,24 @@ int intel_dp_sink_crc(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, u8 *crc) ret = -EIO; goto stop; } - } while (--attempts && (count == 0 || (count == intel_dp->sink_crc.last_count && - !memcmp(intel_dp->sink_crc.last_crc, crc, - 6 * sizeof(u8))))); + + old_equal_new = (count == intel_dp->sink_crc.last_count && + !memcmp(intel_dp->sink_crc.last_crc, crc, + 6 * sizeof(u8))); + + } while (--attempts && (count == 0 || old_equal_new)); intel_dp->sink_crc.last_count = buf & DP_TEST_COUNT_MASK; memcpy(intel_dp->sink_crc.last_crc, crc, 6 * sizeof(u8)); if (attempts == 0) { - DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Panel is unable to calculate CRC after 6 vblanks\n"); - ret = -ETIMEDOUT; - goto stop; + if (old_equal_new) { + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Unreliable Sink CRC counter: Current returned CRC is identical to the previous one\n"); + } else { + DRM_ERROR("Panel is unable to calculate any CRC after 6 vblanks\n"); + ret = -ETIMEDOUT; + goto stop; + } } stop:
By Vesa DP 1.2 spec TEST_CRC_COUNT is a "4 bit wrap counter which increments each time the TEST_CRC_x_x are updated." However if we are trying to verify the screen hasn't changed we get same (count, crc) pair twice. Without this patch we would return -ETIMEOUT in this case. So, if in 6 vblanks the pair (count, crc) hasn't changed we return it anyway instead of returning error and let test case decide if it was right or not. Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 21 +++++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)