[PATCH] drm/bridge: analogix: Don't return -EINVAL when panel not support PSR in PSR functions
We will ignored PSR setting if panel not support it. So, in this case, we should return from analogix_dp_enable/disable_psr() without any error code. Let's retrun 0 instead of -EINVAL when panel not support PSR in analogix_dp_enable/disable_psr().
Signed-off-by: zain wang wzz@rock-chips.com --- drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c | 6 ++++-- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c index 6e0447f..0cb3695 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ int analogix_dp_enable_psr(struct device *dev) struct edp_vsc_psr psr_vsc;
if (!dp->psr_support) - return -EINVAL; + return 0;
/* Prepare VSC packet as per EDP 1.4 spec, Table 6.9 */ memset(&psr_vsc, 0, sizeof(psr_vsc)); @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ int analogix_dp_disable_psr(struct device *dev) struct edp_vsc_psr psr_vsc;
if (!dp->psr_support) - return -EINVAL; + return 0;
/* Prepare VSC packet as per EDP 1.4 spec, Table 6.9 */ memset(&psr_vsc, 0, sizeof(psr_vsc)); @@ -878,6 +878,8 @@ static void analogix_dp_commit(struct analogix_dp_device *dp) dp->psr_support = analogix_dp_detect_sink_psr(dp); if (dp->psr_support) analogix_dp_enable_sink_psr(dp); + else + dev_warn(dp->dev, "Sink not support PSR\n"); }
/*
Hi,
On 12/02/2016 08:02 AM, zain wang wrote:
We will ignored PSR setting if panel not support it. So, in this case, we should return from analogix_dp_enable/disable_psr() without any error code. Let's retrun 0 instead of -EINVAL when panel not support PSR in analogix_dp_enable/disable_psr().
Signed-off-by: zain wang wzz@rock-chips.com
drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c | 6 ++++-- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c index 6e0447f..0cb3695 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ int analogix_dp_enable_psr(struct device *dev) struct edp_vsc_psr psr_vsc;
if (!dp->psr_support)
return -EINVAL;
return 0;
Looking at the rockchip analogix dp code, in analogix_dp_psr_set, the worker that calls analogix_dp_enable/disable_psr isn't even if psr isn't enabled. So, the bridge funcs shouldn't be called in the first place. I think the error handling is fine to have here.
/* Prepare VSC packet as per EDP 1.4 spec, Table 6.9 */ memset(&psr_vsc, 0, sizeof(psr_vsc)); @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ int analogix_dp_disable_psr(struct device *dev) struct edp_vsc_psr psr_vsc;
if (!dp->psr_support)
return -EINVAL;
return 0;/* Prepare VSC packet as per EDP 1.4 spec, Table 6.9 */ memset(&psr_vsc, 0, sizeof(psr_vsc));
@@ -878,6 +878,8 @@ static void analogix_dp_commit(struct analogix_dp_device *dp) dp->psr_support = analogix_dp_detect_sink_psr(dp); if (dp->psr_support) analogix_dp_enable_sink_psr(dp);
- else
dev_warn(dp->dev, "Sink not support PSR\n");
This doesn't seem beneficial either. There seems to be a debug print already in analogix_dp_detect_sink_psr which reports PSR related info.
Archit
}
/*
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Archit Taneja architt@codeaurora.org wrote:
Hi,
On 12/02/2016 08:02 AM, zain wang wrote:
We will ignored PSR setting if panel not support it. So, in this case, we should return from analogix_dp_enable/disable_psr() without any error code. Let's retrun 0 instead of -EINVAL when panel not support PSR in analogix_dp_enable/disable_psr().
Signed-off-by: zain wang wzz@rock-chips.com
drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c | 6 ++++-- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c index 6e0447f..0cb3695 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ int analogix_dp_enable_psr(struct device *dev) struct edp_vsc_psr psr_vsc;
if (!dp->psr_support)
return -EINVAL;
return 0;Looking at the rockchip analogix dp code, in analogix_dp_psr_set, the worker that calls analogix_dp_enable/disable_psr isn't even if psr isn't enabled. So, the bridge funcs shouldn't be called in the first place. I think the error handling is fine to have here.
Hi Archit,
This was my first impression, too, and the complexity of the various psr abstraction layers don't help :)
However, this code path will be hit if the source supports psr, but the sink doesn't. The rockchip_drm_psr code doesn't know if the sink supports psr, so it will end up calling this.
Sean
/* Prepare VSC packet as per EDP 1.4 spec, Table 6.9 */ memset(&psr_vsc, 0, sizeof(psr_vsc));@@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ int analogix_dp_disable_psr(struct device *dev) struct edp_vsc_psr psr_vsc;
if (!dp->psr_support)
return -EINVAL;
return 0; /* Prepare VSC packet as per EDP 1.4 spec, Table 6.9 */ memset(&psr_vsc, 0, sizeof(psr_vsc));@@ -878,6 +878,8 @@ static void analogix_dp_commit(struct analogix_dp_device *dp) dp->psr_support = analogix_dp_detect_sink_psr(dp); if (dp->psr_support) analogix_dp_enable_sink_psr(dp);
elsedev_warn(dp->dev, "Sink not support PSR\n");This doesn't seem beneficial either. There seems to be a debug print already in analogix_dp_detect_sink_psr which reports PSR related info.
Archit
}
/*
-- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
On 12/02/2016 09:33 PM, Sean Paul wrote:
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Archit Taneja architt@codeaurora.org wrote:
Hi,
On 12/02/2016 08:02 AM, zain wang wrote:
We will ignored PSR setting if panel not support it. So, in this case, we should return from analogix_dp_enable/disable_psr() without any error code. Let's retrun 0 instead of -EINVAL when panel not support PSR in analogix_dp_enable/disable_psr().
Signed-off-by: zain wang wzz@rock-chips.com
drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c | 6 ++++-- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c index 6e0447f..0cb3695 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ int analogix_dp_enable_psr(struct device *dev) struct edp_vsc_psr psr_vsc;
if (!dp->psr_support)
return -EINVAL;
return 0;Looking at the rockchip analogix dp code, in analogix_dp_psr_set, the worker that calls analogix_dp_enable/disable_psr isn't even if psr isn't enabled. So, the bridge funcs shouldn't be called in the first place. I think the error handling is fine to have here.
Hi Archit,
This was my first impression, too, and the complexity of the various psr abstraction layers don't help :)
However, this code path will be hit if the source supports psr, but the sink doesn't. The rockchip_drm_psr code doesn't know if the sink supports psr, so it will end up calling this.
Okay, thanks for the explanation. The dev_warn() below still seems unnecessary, right?
Archit
Sean
/* Prepare VSC packet as per EDP 1.4 spec, Table 6.9 */ memset(&psr_vsc, 0, sizeof(psr_vsc));@@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ int analogix_dp_disable_psr(struct device *dev) struct edp_vsc_psr psr_vsc;
if (!dp->psr_support)
return -EINVAL;
return 0; /* Prepare VSC packet as per EDP 1.4 spec, Table 6.9 */ memset(&psr_vsc, 0, sizeof(psr_vsc));@@ -878,6 +878,8 @@ static void analogix_dp_commit(struct analogix_dp_device *dp) dp->psr_support = analogix_dp_detect_sink_psr(dp); if (dp->psr_support) analogix_dp_enable_sink_psr(dp);
elsedev_warn(dp->dev, "Sink not support PSR\n");This doesn't seem beneficial either. There seems to be a debug print already in analogix_dp_detect_sink_psr which reports PSR related info.
Archit
}
/*
-- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 10:13 PM, Archit Taneja architt@codeaurora.org wrote:
On 12/02/2016 09:33 PM, Sean Paul wrote:
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Archit Taneja architt@codeaurora.org wrote:
Hi,
On 12/02/2016 08:02 AM, zain wang wrote:
We will ignored PSR setting if panel not support it. So, in this case, we should return from analogix_dp_enable/disable_psr() without any error code. Let's retrun 0 instead of -EINVAL when panel not support PSR in analogix_dp_enable/disable_psr().
Signed-off-by: zain wang wzz@rock-chips.com
drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c | 6 ++++-- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c index 6e0447f..0cb3695 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ int analogix_dp_enable_psr(struct device *dev) struct edp_vsc_psr psr_vsc;
if (!dp->psr_support)
return -EINVAL;
return 0;Looking at the rockchip analogix dp code, in analogix_dp_psr_set, the worker that calls analogix_dp_enable/disable_psr isn't even if psr isn't enabled. So, the bridge funcs shouldn't be called in the first place. I think the error handling is fine to have here.
Hi Archit,
This was my first impression, too, and the complexity of the various psr abstraction layers don't help :)
However, this code path will be hit if the source supports psr, but the sink doesn't. The rockchip_drm_psr code doesn't know if the sink supports psr, so it will end up calling this.
Okay, thanks for the explanation. The dev_warn() below still seems unnecessary, right?
Yeah, one could make a case for dev_info (disclaimer: I have a high tolerance for noisy logs), but a warning does seem excessive.
Sean
Archit
Sean
/* Prepare VSC packet as per EDP 1.4 spec, Table 6.9 */ memset(&psr_vsc, 0, sizeof(psr_vsc));@@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ int analogix_dp_disable_psr(struct device *dev) struct edp_vsc_psr psr_vsc;
if (!dp->psr_support)
return -EINVAL;
return 0; /* Prepare VSC packet as per EDP 1.4 spec, Table 6.9 */ memset(&psr_vsc, 0, sizeof(psr_vsc));@@ -878,6 +878,8 @@ static void analogix_dp_commit(struct analogix_dp_device *dp) dp->psr_support = analogix_dp_detect_sink_psr(dp); if (dp->psr_support) analogix_dp_enable_sink_psr(dp);
elsedev_warn(dp->dev, "Sink not support PSR\n");This doesn't seem beneficial either. There seems to be a debug print already in analogix_dp_detect_sink_psr which reports PSR related info.
Archit
}
/*
-- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
-- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
-
Archit Taneja -
Sean Paul -
zain wang