From: Tarun Vyas Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 20:02:49 +0000 (-0700) Subject: drm/i915/psr: Lockless version of psr_wait_for_idle X-Git-Url: http://git.lede-project.org./?a=commitdiff_plain;h=c43dbcbbcc8c515d4ececc7a996d5fc7286c28c3;p=openwrt%2Fstaging%2Fblogic.git drm/i915/psr: Lockless version of psr_wait_for_idle This is a lockless version of the exisiting psr_wait_for_idle(). We want to wait for PSR to idle out inside intel_pipe_update_start. At the time of a pipe update, we should never race with any psr enable or disable code, which is a part of crtc enable/disable. The follow up patch will use this lockless wait inside pipe_update_ start to wait for PSR to idle out before checking for vblank evasion. We need to keep the wait in pipe_update_start to as less as it can be. So,we can live and flourish w/o taking any psr locks at all. Even if psr is never enabled, psr2_enabled will be false and this function will wait for PSR1 to idle out, which should just return immediately, so a very short (~1-2 usec) wait for cases where PSR is disabled. v2: Add comment to explain the 25msec timeout (DK) v3: Rename psr_wait_for_idle to __psr_wait_for_idle_locked to avoid naming conflicts and propagate err (if any) to the caller (Chris) v5: Form a series with the next patch v7: Better explain the need for lockless wait and increase the max timeout to handle refresh rates < 60 Hz (Daniel Vetter) v8: Rebase Acked-by: Daniel Vetter Reviewed-by: Dhinakaran Pandiyan Signed-off-by: Tarun Vyas Signed-off-by: Dhinakaran Pandiyan Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20180627200250.1515-1-tarun.vyas@intel.com --- diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h index 5a37db292d3a..a8073eb02ffa 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h @@ -1921,6 +1921,7 @@ void intel_psr_compute_config(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, void intel_psr_irq_control(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, bool debug); void intel_psr_irq_handler(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, u32 psr_iir); void intel_psr_short_pulse(struct intel_dp *intel_dp); +int intel_psr_wait_for_idle(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv); /* intel_runtime_pm.c */ int intel_power_domains_init(struct drm_i915_private *); diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c index 45f1cb7d6c04..23acc9ac8d4d 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c @@ -717,7 +717,39 @@ void intel_psr_disable(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, cancel_work_sync(&dev_priv->psr.work); } -static bool psr_wait_for_idle(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) +int intel_psr_wait_for_idle(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) +{ + i915_reg_t reg; + u32 mask; + + /* + * The sole user right now is intel_pipe_update_start(), + * which won't race with psr_enable/disable, which is + * where psr2_enabled is written to. So, we don't need + * to acquire the psr.lock. More importantly, we want the + * latency inside intel_pipe_update_start() to be as low + * as possible, so no need to acquire psr.lock when it is + * not needed and will induce latencies in the atomic + * update path. + */ + if (dev_priv->psr.psr2_enabled) { + reg = EDP_PSR2_STATUS; + mask = EDP_PSR2_STATUS_STATE_MASK; + } else { + reg = EDP_PSR_STATUS; + mask = EDP_PSR_STATUS_STATE_MASK; + } + + /* + * Max time for PSR to idle = Inverse of the refresh rate + + * 6 ms of exit training time + 1.5 ms of aux channel + * handshake. 50 msec is defesive enough to cover everything. + */ + return intel_wait_for_register(dev_priv, reg, mask, + EDP_PSR_STATUS_STATE_IDLE, 50); +} + +static bool __psr_wait_for_idle_locked(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) { struct intel_dp *intel_dp; i915_reg_t reg; @@ -763,7 +795,7 @@ static void intel_psr_work(struct work_struct *work) * PSR might take some time to get fully disabled * and be ready for re-enable. */ - if (!psr_wait_for_idle(dev_priv)) + if (!__psr_wait_for_idle_locked(dev_priv)) goto unlock; /*