Hi,

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 6:42 PM Abhinav Kumar quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com wrote:

...

...

2. When there was a valid EDID but no 640x480 mode

This is the equipment specific case and the one even I was a bit surprised. There is a DP compliance equipment we have in-house and while validation, it was found that in its list of modes , it did not have any modes which chromebook supported ( due to 2 lanes ). But my understanding was that, all sinks should have atleast 640x480 but apparently this one did not have that. So to handle this DP compliance equipment behavior, we had to do this.

That doesn't seem right. If there's a valid EDID and the valid EDID doesn't contain 640x480, are you _sure_ you're supposed to be adding 640x480? That doesn't sound right to me. I've got a tiny display in front of me for testing that only has one mode:

#0 800x480 65.68 800 840 888 928 480 493 496 525 32000

As I had wrote, DRM core kicks in only when the count of modes is 0. Here what is happening is the count was not 0 but 640x480 was not present in the EDID. So we had to add it explicitly.

Your tiny display is a display port display?

I am referring to only display port monitors. If your tiny display is DP, it should have had 640x480 in its list of modes.

My tiny display is actually a HDMI display hooked up to a HDMI to DP (active) adapter.

...but this is a legal and common thing to have. I suppose possibly my HDMI display is "illegal"?

OK, so reading through the spec more carefully, I do see that the DP spec makes numerous mentions of the fact that DP sinks _must_ support 640x480. Even going back to DP 1.4, I see section "5.2.1.2 Video Timing Format" says that we must support 640x480. It seems like that's _intended_ to be used only if the EDID read fails, though or if we somehow have to output video without knowledge of the EDID. It seems hard to believe that there's a great reason to assume a display will support 640x480 if we have more accurate knowledge.

In any case, I guess I would still say that adding this mode belongs in the DRM core. The core should notice that it's a DP connection (bridge->type == DRM_MODE_CONNECTOR_DisplayPort) and that 640x480 was left out and it should add it. We should also make sure it's not "preferred" and is last in the list so we never accidentally pick it. If DP truly says that we should always give the user 640x480 then that's true for everyone, not just Qualcomm. We should add it in the core. If, later, someone wants to hide this from the UI it would be much easier if they only needed to modify one place.

...

So IMO we _shouldn't_ land ${SUBJECT} patch.

Just for testing, I also tried a hack to make EDID reading fail (return -EIO in the MSM dp_aux_transfer() function if msg->request < 8). Before ${SUBJECT} patch I'd see these modes:

#0 1024x768 60.00 1024 1048 1184 1344 768 771 777 806 65000 #1 800x600 60.32 800 840 968 1056 600 601 605 628 40000 #2 800x600 56.25 800 824 896 1024 600 601 603 625 36000 #3 848x480 60.00 848 864 976 1088 480 486 494 517 33750 #4 640x480 59.94 640 656 752 800 480 490 492 525 25175

...and after ${SUBJECT} patch I'd see:

#0 640x480 59.94 640 656 752 800 480 490 492 525 25175 #1 1024x768 60.00 1024 1048 1184 1344 768 771 777 806 65000 #2 800x600 60.32 800 840 968 1056 600 601 605 628 40000 #3 800x600 56.25 800 824 896 1024 600 601 603 625 36000 #4 848x480 60.00 848 864 976 1088 480 486 494 517 33750

...so your patch causes 640x480 to be prioritized. That also doesn't seem ideal. If it was ideal, the DRM core should have listed 640x480 first.

So this is a different display or these modes are coming due to the drm_add_modes_noedid() call because of the EDID read fail right?

Right, it's from the !edid case.

-Doug

Hi,

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 8:35 PM Abhinav Kumar quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com wrote:

On 4/25/2022 7:18 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:

...

Hi,

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 6:42 PM Abhinav Kumar quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com wrote:

...

...

...

2. When there was a valid EDID but no 640x480 mode

This is the equipment specific case and the one even I was a bit surprised. There is a DP compliance equipment we have in-house and while validation, it was found that in its list of modes , it did not have any modes which chromebook supported ( due to 2 lanes ). But my understanding was that, all sinks should have atleast 640x480 but apparently this one did not have that. So to handle this DP compliance equipment behavior, we had to do this.

That doesn't seem right. If there's a valid EDID and the valid EDID doesn't contain 640x480, are you _sure_ you're supposed to be adding 640x480? That doesn't sound right to me. I've got a tiny display in front of me for testing that only has one mode:

#0 800x480 65.68 800 840 888 928 480 493 496 525 32000

As I had wrote, DRM core kicks in only when the count of modes is 0. Here what is happening is the count was not 0 but 640x480 was not present in the EDID. So we had to add it explicitly.

Your tiny display is a display port display?

I am referring to only display port monitors. If your tiny display is DP, it should have had 640x480 in its list of modes.

My tiny display is actually a HDMI display hooked up to a HDMI to DP (active) adapter.

...but this is a legal and common thing to have. I suppose possibly my HDMI display is "illegal"?

OK, so reading through the spec more carefully, I do see that the DP spec makes numerous mentions of the fact that DP sinks _must_ support 640x480. Even going back to DP 1.4, I see section "5.2.1.2 Video Timing Format" says that we must support 640x480. It seems like that's _intended_ to be used only if the EDID read fails, though or if we somehow have to output video without knowledge of the EDID. It seems hard to believe that there's a great reason to assume a display will support 640x480 if we have more accurate knowledge.

In any case, I guess I would still say that adding this mode belongs in the DRM core. The core should notice that it's a DP connection (bridge->type == DRM_MODE_CONNECTOR_DisplayPort) and that 640x480 was left out and it should add it. We should also make sure it's not "preferred" and is last in the list so we never accidentally pick it. If DP truly says that we should always give the user 640x480 then that's true for everyone, not just Qualcomm. We should add it in the core. If, later, someone wants to hide this from the UI it would be much easier if they only needed to modify one place.

So I debugged with kuogee just now using the DP compliance equipment. It turns out, the issue is not that 640x480 mode is not present.

The issue is that it is not marked as preferred.

Hence we missed this part during debugging this equipment failure.

We still have to figure out the best way to either mark 640x480 as preferred or eliminate other modes during the test-case so that 640x480 is actually picked by usermode.

Now that being said, the fix still doesn't belong in the framework. It has to be in the msm/dp code.

Different vendors handle this failure case differently looks like.

Lets take below snippet from i915 as example.

3361 if (intel_connector->detect_edid == NULL || 3362 connector->edid_corrupt || 3363 intel_dp->aux.i2c_defer_count > 6) { 3364 /* Check EDID read for NACKs, DEFERs and corruption 3365 * (DP CTS 1.2 Core r1.1) 3366 * 4.2.2.4 : Failed EDID read, I2C_NAK 3367 * 4.2.2.5 : Failed EDID read, I2C_DEFER 3368 * 4.2.2.6 : EDID corruption detected 3369 * Use failsafe mode for all cases 3370 */ 3371 if (intel_dp->aux.i2c_nack_count > 0 || 3372 intel_dp->aux.i2c_defer_count > 0) 3373 drm_dbg_kms(&i915->drm, 3374 "EDID read had %d NACKs, %d DEFERs\n", 3375 intel_dp->aux.i2c_nack_count, 3376 intel_dp->aux.i2c_defer_count); 3377 intel_dp->compliance.test_data.edid = INTEL_DP_RESOLUTION_FAILSAFE;

Just because Intel DRM has its own solution for something doesn't mean everyone else should copy them and implement their own solution. Up until recently DP AUX backlights were baked into different DRM drivers. A recent effort was made to pull it out. I think the Intel DRM code was the "first one" to the party and it wasn't clear how things should be broken up to share with other drivers, so mostly it did everything itself, but that's not the long term answer.

I'm not saying that we need to block your change on a full re-design or anything, but I'm just saying that:

* You're trying to implement a generic DP rule, not something specific to Qualcomm hardware. That implies that, if possible, it shouldn't be in a Qualcomm driver.

* It doesn't seem like it would be terrible to handle this in the core.

This marks the fail safe mode and IGT test case reads this to set this mode and hence the test passes.

We rely on the chromeOS usermode to output pixel data for this test-case and not IGT. We use IGT only for video pattern CTS today but this is a different test-case which is failing.

ChromeOS usermode will not pick 640x480 unless we mark it as preferred or other modes are eliminated.

So we have to come up with the right way for the usermode to pick 640x480.

We will discuss this a bit more and come up with a different change.

Can you provide the exact EDID from the failing test case? Maybe that will help shed some light on what's going on. I looked at the original commit and it just referred to 4.2.2.1, which I assume is "EDID Read upon HPD Plug Event", but that doesn't give details that seem relevant to the discussion here.

I guess maybe what's happening is that the test case is giving an EDID where all the modes are not supportable by the current clock rate / lanes? ...and then somehow we're not falling back to 640x480. It's always possible that this is a userspace problem.

In any case, would you object to a revert of the patches in the short term?

-Doug

On 26/04/2022 18:37, Abhinav Kumar wrote:

Hi Doug

On 4/26/2022 8:20 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:

...

Hi,

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 8:35 PM Abhinav Kumar quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com wrote:

...

On 4/25/2022 7:18 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:

...

Hi,

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 6:42 PM Abhinav Kumar quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com wrote:

...

...

> 2) When there was a valid EDID but no 640x480 mode > > This is the equipment specific case and the one even I was a bit > surprised. There is a DP compliance equipment we have in-house > and while > validation, it was found that in its list of modes , it did not > have any > modes which chromebook supported ( due to 2 lanes ). But my > understanding was that, all sinks should have atleast 640x480 but > apparently this one did not have that. So to handle this DP > compliance > equipment behavior, we had to do this.

That doesn't seem right. If there's a valid EDID and the valid EDID doesn't contain 640x480, are you _sure_ you're supposed to be adding 640x480? That doesn't sound right to me. I've got a tiny display in front of me for testing that only has one mode:

#0 800x480 65.68 800 840 888 928 480 493 496 525 32000

As I had wrote, DRM core kicks in only when the count of modes is 0. Here what is happening is the count was not 0 but 640x480 was not present in the EDID. So we had to add it explicitly.

Your tiny display is a display port display?

I am referring to only display port monitors. If your tiny display is DP, it should have had 640x480 in its list of modes.

My tiny display is actually a HDMI display hooked up to a HDMI to DP (active) adapter.

...but this is a legal and common thing to have. I suppose possibly my HDMI display is "illegal"?

OK, so reading through the spec more carefully, I do see that the DP spec makes numerous mentions of the fact that DP sinks _must_ support 640x480. Even going back to DP 1.4, I see section "5.2.1.2 Video Timing Format" says that we must support 640x480. It seems like that's _intended_ to be used only if the EDID read fails, though or if we somehow have to output video without knowledge of the EDID. It seems hard to believe that there's a great reason to assume a display will support 640x480 if we have more accurate knowledge.

In any case, I guess I would still say that adding this mode belongs in the DRM core. The core should notice that it's a DP connection (bridge->type == DRM_MODE_CONNECTOR_DisplayPort) and that 640x480 was left out and it should add it. We should also make sure it's not "preferred" and is last in the list so we never accidentally pick it. If DP truly says that we should always give the user 640x480 then that's true for everyone, not just Qualcomm. We should add it in the core. If, later, someone wants to hide this from the UI it would be much easier if they only needed to modify one place.

So I debugged with kuogee just now using the DP compliance equipment. It turns out, the issue is not that 640x480 mode is not present.

The issue is that it is not marked as preferred.

Hence we missed this part during debugging this equipment failure.

We still have to figure out the best way to either mark 640x480 as preferred or eliminate other modes during the test-case so that 640x480 is actually picked by usermode.

Now that being said, the fix still doesn't belong in the framework. It has to be in the msm/dp code.

Different vendors handle this failure case differently looks like.

Lets take below snippet from i915 as example.

3361    if (intel_connector->detect_edid == NULL || 3362        connector->edid_corrupt || 3363        intel_dp->aux.i2c_defer_count > 6) { 3364            /* Check EDID read for NACKs, DEFERs and corruption 3365             * (DP CTS 1.2 Core r1.1) 3366             *    4.2.2.4 : Failed EDID read, I2C_NAK 3367             *    4.2.2.5 : Failed EDID read, I2C_DEFER 3368             *    4.2.2.6 : EDID corruption detected 3369             * Use failsafe mode for all cases 3370             */ 3371            if (intel_dp->aux.i2c_nack_count > 0 || 3372                    intel_dp->aux.i2c_defer_count > 0) 3373                    drm_dbg_kms(&i915->drm, 3374                                "EDID read had %d NACKs, %d DEFERs\n", 3375                                intel_dp->aux.i2c_nack_count, 3376                                intel_dp->aux.i2c_defer_count); 3377            intel_dp->compliance.test_data.edid = INTEL_DP_RESOLUTION_FAILSAFE;

The reason I pointed to this code is to give an example of how other drivers handle this test-case.

We added this patch for 4.2.2.1 and 4.2.2.6 EDID test cases.

The challenge here as found out from our discussion here was to mark a particular mode as preferred so that the Chrome usermode can pick it.

Now whats happening with that there was always a possibility of two modes being marked as preferred due to this and so-on.

We had a pretty long discussion last night and thought of all possible solutions but all of them look like a hack to us in the driver because we end up breaking other things due to this.

So we decided that driver is not the place to handle this test case. Since we do have IGT support for chromebooks, we will handle both these test cases there as other vendors do the same way and it works.

...

Just because Intel DRM has its own solution for something doesn't mean everyone else should copy them and implement their own solution. Up until recently DP AUX backlights were baked into different DRM drivers. A recent effort was made to pull it out. I think the Intel DRM code was the "first one" to the party and it wasn't clear how things should be broken up to share with other drivers, so mostly it did everything itself, but that's not the long term answer.

I'm not saying that we need to block your change on a full re-design or anything, but I'm just saying that:

• You're trying to implement a generic DP rule, not something specific

to Qualcomm hardware. That implies that, if possible, it shouldn't be in a Qualcomm driver.

• It doesn't seem like it would be terrible to handle this in the core.

...

This marks the fail safe mode and IGT test case reads this to set this mode and hence the test passes.

We rely on the chromeOS usermode to output pixel data for this test-case and not IGT. We use IGT only for video pattern CTS today but this is a different test-case which is failing.

ChromeOS usermode will not pick 640x480 unless we mark it as preferred or other modes are eliminated.

So we have to come up with the right way for the usermode to pick 640x480.

We will discuss this a bit more and come up with a different change.

Can you provide the exact EDID from the failing test case? Maybe that will help shed some light on what's going on. I looked at the original commit and it just referred to 4.2.2.1, which I assume is "EDID Read upon HPD Plug Event", but that doesn't give details that seem relevant to the discussion here.

Yes so it is 4.2.2.1 and 4.2.2.6.

That alone wont give the full picture.

So its a combination of things.

While running the test, the test equipment published only one mode. But we could not support that mode because of 2 lanes. Equipment did not add 640x480 to the list of modes. DRM fwk will also not add it because count_modes is not 0 ( there was one mode ). So we ended up making these changes.

I think a proper solution might be to rewrite drm_helper_probe_single_connector_modes() in the following way: - call get_modes() - validate the result - prune invalid

- if the number of modes is 0, call drm_add_override_edid_modes() - validate the result - prune invalid

- if the number of modes is still 0, call drm_add_modes_noedid() - validate the result - prune invalid

[A separate change might happen here after all the checks: if the number of modes is still 0 and if it is a DP, enforce adding 640x480 even w/o validation. But generally I feel that this shouldn't be necessary because the previous step should have added it.]

This way we can be sure that all modes are validated, but still to do our best to add something supported to the list of modes.

...

I guess maybe what's happening is that the test case is giving an EDID where all the modes are not supportable by the current clock rate / lanes? ...and then somehow we're not falling back to 640x480. It's always possible that this is a userspace problem.

In any case, would you object to a revert of the patches in the short term?

Not sure, if you saw this change kuogee posted last night. https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/483415/ We did decided to remove all the code related to these test cases and handle them in IGT.

...

-Doug

On 4/26/2022 10:11 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:

Hi,

On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 10:01 AM Dmitry Baryshkov dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org wrote:

...

On 26/04/2022 18:37, Abhinav Kumar wrote:

...

Hi Doug

On 4/26/2022 8:20 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:

...

Hi,

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 8:35 PM Abhinav Kumar quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com wrote:

...

On 4/25/2022 7:18 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:

...

Hi,

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 6:42 PM Abhinav Kumar quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com wrote: > >>> 2) When there was a valid EDID but no 640x480 mode >>> >>> This is the equipment specific case and the one even I was a bit >>> surprised. There is a DP compliance equipment we have in-house >>> and while >>> validation, it was found that in its list of modes , it did not >>> have any >>> modes which chromebook supported ( due to 2 lanes ). But my >>> understanding was that, all sinks should have atleast 640x480 but >>> apparently this one did not have that. So to handle this DP >>> compliance >>> equipment behavior, we had to do this. >> >> That doesn't seem right. If there's a valid EDID and the valid EDID >> doesn't contain 640x480, are you _sure_ you're supposed to be adding >> 640x480? That doesn't sound right to me. I've got a tiny display in >> front of me for testing that only has one mode: >> >> #0 800x480 65.68 800 840 888 928 480 493 496 525 32000 >> > > As I had wrote, DRM core kicks in only when the count of modes is 0. > Here what is happening is the count was not 0 but 640x480 was not > present in the EDID. So we had to add it explicitly. > > Your tiny display is a display port display? > > I am referring to only display port monitors. If your tiny display is > DP, it should have had 640x480 in its list of modes.

My tiny display is actually a HDMI display hooked up to a HDMI to DP (active) adapter.

...but this is a legal and common thing to have. I suppose possibly my HDMI display is "illegal"?

OK, so reading through the spec more carefully, I do see that the DP spec makes numerous mentions of the fact that DP sinks _must_ support 640x480. Even going back to DP 1.4, I see section "5.2.1.2 Video Timing Format" says that we must support 640x480. It seems like that's _intended_ to be used only if the EDID read fails, though or if we somehow have to output video without knowledge of the EDID. It seems hard to believe that there's a great reason to assume a display will support 640x480 if we have more accurate knowledge.

In any case, I guess I would still say that adding this mode belongs in the DRM core. The core should notice that it's a DP connection (bridge->type == DRM_MODE_CONNECTOR_DisplayPort) and that 640x480 was left out and it should add it. We should also make sure it's not "preferred" and is last in the list so we never accidentally pick it. If DP truly says that we should always give the user 640x480 then that's true for everyone, not just Qualcomm. We should add it in the core. If, later, someone wants to hide this from the UI it would be much easier if they only needed to modify one place.

So I debugged with kuogee just now using the DP compliance equipment. It turns out, the issue is not that 640x480 mode is not present.

The issue is that it is not marked as preferred.

Hence we missed this part during debugging this equipment failure.

We still have to figure out the best way to either mark 640x480 as preferred or eliminate other modes during the test-case so that 640x480 is actually picked by usermode.

Now that being said, the fix still doesn't belong in the framework. It has to be in the msm/dp code.

Different vendors handle this failure case differently looks like.

Lets take below snippet from i915 as example.

3361 if (intel_connector->detect_edid == NULL || 3362 connector->edid_corrupt || 3363 intel_dp->aux.i2c_defer_count > 6) { 3364 /* Check EDID read for NACKs, DEFERs and corruption 3365 * (DP CTS 1.2 Core r1.1) 3366 * 4.2.2.4 : Failed EDID read, I2C_NAK 3367 * 4.2.2.5 : Failed EDID read, I2C_DEFER 3368 * 4.2.2.6 : EDID corruption detected 3369 * Use failsafe mode for all cases 3370 */ 3371 if (intel_dp->aux.i2c_nack_count > 0 || 3372 intel_dp->aux.i2c_defer_count > 0) 3373 drm_dbg_kms(&i915->drm, 3374 "EDID read had %d NACKs, %d DEFERs\n", 3375 intel_dp->aux.i2c_nack_count, 3376 intel_dp->aux.i2c_defer_count); 3377 intel_dp->compliance.test_data.edid = INTEL_DP_RESOLUTION_FAILSAFE;

The reason I pointed to this code is to give an example of how other drivers handle this test-case.

We added this patch for 4.2.2.1 and 4.2.2.6 EDID test cases.

The challenge here as found out from our discussion here was to mark a particular mode as preferred so that the Chrome usermode can pick it.

Now whats happening with that there was always a possibility of two modes being marked as preferred due to this and so-on.

We had a pretty long discussion last night and thought of all possible solutions but all of them look like a hack to us in the driver because we end up breaking other things due to this.

So we decided that driver is not the place to handle this test case. Since we do have IGT support for chromebooks, we will handle both these test cases there as other vendors do the same way and it works.

...

Just because Intel DRM has its own solution for something doesn't mean everyone else should copy them and implement their own solution. Up until recently DP AUX backlights were baked into different DRM drivers. A recent effort was made to pull it out. I think the Intel DRM code was the "first one" to the party and it wasn't clear how things should be broken up to share with other drivers, so mostly it did everything itself, but that's not the long term answer.

I'm not saying that we need to block your change on a full re-design or anything, but I'm just saying that:

• You're trying to implement a generic DP rule, not something specific

to Qualcomm hardware. That implies that, if possible, it shouldn't be in a Qualcomm driver.

• It doesn't seem like it would be terrible to handle this in the core.

...

This marks the fail safe mode and IGT test case reads this to set this mode and hence the test passes.

We rely on the chromeOS usermode to output pixel data for this test-case and not IGT. We use IGT only for video pattern CTS today but this is a different test-case which is failing.

ChromeOS usermode will not pick 640x480 unless we mark it as preferred or other modes are eliminated.

So we have to come up with the right way for the usermode to pick 640x480.

We will discuss this a bit more and come up with a different change.

Can you provide the exact EDID from the failing test case? Maybe that will help shed some light on what's going on. I looked at the original commit and it just referred to 4.2.2.1, which I assume is "EDID Read upon HPD Plug Event", but that doesn't give details that seem relevant to the discussion here.

Yes so it is 4.2.2.1 and 4.2.2.6.

That alone wont give the full picture.

So its a combination of things.

While running the test, the test equipment published only one mode. But we could not support that mode because of 2 lanes. Equipment did not add 640x480 to the list of modes. DRM fwk will also not add it because count_modes is not 0 ( there was one mode ). So we ended up making these changes.

I think a proper solution might be to rewrite drm_helper_probe_single_connector_modes() in the following way:

• call get_modes()

• validate the result

• prune invalid

• if the number of modes is 0, call drm_add_override_edid_modes()

• validate the result

• prune invalid

• if the number of modes is still 0, call drm_add_modes_noedid()

• validate the result

• prune invalid

[A separate change might happen here after all the checks: if the number of modes is still 0 and if it is a DP, enforce adding 640x480 even w/o validation. But generally I feel that this shouldn't be necessary because the previous step should have added it.]

This way we can be sure that all modes are validated, but still to do our best to add something supported to the list of modes.

I'm partway through implementing / testing something similar to this. ;-) My logic is slightly different than yours, though. In the very least I'm not convinced that we want to add the higher resolution modes (like 1024x768) if all the modes fail to validate. The DP spec only claims 640x480 is always supported. The higher resolution modes are for when the EDID fails to read I think. Similarly I'm not convinced that we should do pruning before deciding on drm_add_override_edid_modes().

Doug, we will certainly evaluate it once you post it.

Thanks

Abhinav

-Doug

Hi,

On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 10:44 AM Dmitry Baryshkov dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org wrote:

On 26/04/2022 20:11, Doug Anderson wrote:

...

Hi,

On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 10:01 AM Dmitry Baryshkov dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org wrote:

...

On 26/04/2022 18:37, Abhinav Kumar wrote:

...

Hi Doug

On 4/26/2022 8:20 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:

...

Hi,

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 8:35 PM Abhinav Kumar quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com wrote:

...

On 4/25/2022 7:18 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 6:42 PM Abhinav Kumar > quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com wrote: >> >>>> 2) When there was a valid EDID but no 640x480 mode >>>> >>>> This is the equipment specific case and the one even I was a bit >>>> surprised. There is a DP compliance equipment we have in-house >>>> and while >>>> validation, it was found that in its list of modes , it did not >>>> have any >>>> modes which chromebook supported ( due to 2 lanes ). But my >>>> understanding was that, all sinks should have atleast 640x480 but >>>> apparently this one did not have that. So to handle this DP >>>> compliance >>>> equipment behavior, we had to do this. >>> >>> That doesn't seem right. If there's a valid EDID and the valid EDID >>> doesn't contain 640x480, are you _sure_ you're supposed to be adding >>> 640x480? That doesn't sound right to me. I've got a tiny display in >>> front of me for testing that only has one mode: >>> >>> #0 800x480 65.68 800 840 888 928 480 493 496 525 32000 >>> >> >> As I had wrote, DRM core kicks in only when the count of modes is 0. >> Here what is happening is the count was not 0 but 640x480 was not >> present in the EDID. So we had to add it explicitly. >> >> Your tiny display is a display port display? >> >> I am referring to only display port monitors. If your tiny display is >> DP, it should have had 640x480 in its list of modes. > > My tiny display is actually a HDMI display hooked up to a HDMI to DP > (active) adapter. > > ...but this is a legal and common thing to have. I suppose possibly my > HDMI display is "illegal"? > > OK, so reading through the spec more carefully, I do see that the DP > spec makes numerous mentions of the fact that DP sinks _must_ support > 640x480. Even going back to DP 1.4, I see section "5.2.1.2 Video > Timing Format" says that we must support 640x480. It seems like that's > _intended_ to be used only if the EDID read fails, though or if we > somehow have to output video without knowledge of the EDID. It seems > hard to believe that there's a great reason to assume a display will > support 640x480 if we have more accurate knowledge. > > In any case, I guess I would still say that adding this mode belongs > in the DRM core. The core should notice that it's a DP connection > (bridge->type == DRM_MODE_CONNECTOR_DisplayPort) and that 640x480 was > left out and it should add it. We should also make sure it's not > "preferred" and is last in the list so we never accidentally pick it. > If DP truly says that we should always give the user 640x480 then > that's true for everyone, not just Qualcomm. We should add it in the > core. If, later, someone wants to hide this from the UI it would be > much easier if they only needed to modify one place. >

So I debugged with kuogee just now using the DP compliance equipment. It turns out, the issue is not that 640x480 mode is not present.

The issue is that it is not marked as preferred.

Hence we missed this part during debugging this equipment failure.

We still have to figure out the best way to either mark 640x480 as preferred or eliminate other modes during the test-case so that 640x480 is actually picked by usermode.

Now that being said, the fix still doesn't belong in the framework. It has to be in the msm/dp code.

Different vendors handle this failure case differently looks like.

Lets take below snippet from i915 as example.

3361 if (intel_connector->detect_edid == NULL || 3362 connector->edid_corrupt || 3363 intel_dp->aux.i2c_defer_count > 6) { 3364 /* Check EDID read for NACKs, DEFERs and corruption 3365 * (DP CTS 1.2 Core r1.1) 3366 * 4.2.2.4 : Failed EDID read, I2C_NAK 3367 * 4.2.2.5 : Failed EDID read, I2C_DEFER 3368 * 4.2.2.6 : EDID corruption detected 3369 * Use failsafe mode for all cases 3370 */ 3371 if (intel_dp->aux.i2c_nack_count > 0 || 3372 intel_dp->aux.i2c_defer_count > 0) 3373 drm_dbg_kms(&i915->drm, 3374 "EDID read had %d NACKs, %d DEFERs\n", 3375 intel_dp->aux.i2c_nack_count, 3376 intel_dp->aux.i2c_defer_count); 3377 intel_dp->compliance.test_data.edid = INTEL_DP_RESOLUTION_FAILSAFE;

The reason I pointed to this code is to give an example of how other drivers handle this test-case.

We added this patch for 4.2.2.1 and 4.2.2.6 EDID test cases.

The challenge here as found out from our discussion here was to mark a particular mode as preferred so that the Chrome usermode can pick it.

Now whats happening with that there was always a possibility of two modes being marked as preferred due to this and so-on.

We had a pretty long discussion last night and thought of all possible solutions but all of them look like a hack to us in the driver because we end up breaking other things due to this.

So we decided that driver is not the place to handle this test case. Since we do have IGT support for chromebooks, we will handle both these test cases there as other vendors do the same way and it works.

...

Just because Intel DRM has its own solution for something doesn't mean everyone else should copy them and implement their own solution. Up until recently DP AUX backlights were baked into different DRM drivers. A recent effort was made to pull it out. I think the Intel DRM code was the "first one" to the party and it wasn't clear how things should be broken up to share with other drivers, so mostly it did everything itself, but that's not the long term answer.

I'm not saying that we need to block your change on a full re-design or anything, but I'm just saying that:

• You're trying to implement a generic DP rule, not something specific

to Qualcomm hardware. That implies that, if possible, it shouldn't be in a Qualcomm driver.

• It doesn't seem like it would be terrible to handle this in the core.

...

This marks the fail safe mode and IGT test case reads this to set this mode and hence the test passes.

We rely on the chromeOS usermode to output pixel data for this test-case and not IGT. We use IGT only for video pattern CTS today but this is a different test-case which is failing.

ChromeOS usermode will not pick 640x480 unless we mark it as preferred or other modes are eliminated.

So we have to come up with the right way for the usermode to pick 640x480.

We will discuss this a bit more and come up with a different change.

Can you provide the exact EDID from the failing test case? Maybe that will help shed some light on what's going on. I looked at the original commit and it just referred to 4.2.2.1, which I assume is "EDID Read upon HPD Plug Event", but that doesn't give details that seem relevant to the discussion here.

Yes so it is 4.2.2.1 and 4.2.2.6.

That alone wont give the full picture.

So its a combination of things.

While running the test, the test equipment published only one mode. But we could not support that mode because of 2 lanes. Equipment did not add 640x480 to the list of modes. DRM fwk will also not add it because count_modes is not 0 ( there was one mode ). So we ended up making these changes.

I think a proper solution might be to rewrite drm_helper_probe_single_connector_modes() in the following way:

• call get_modes()

• validate the result

• prune invalid

• if the number of modes is 0, call drm_add_override_edid_modes()

• validate the result

• prune invalid

• if the number of modes is still 0, call drm_add_modes_noedid()

• validate the result

• prune invalid

[A separate change might happen here after all the checks: if the number of modes is still 0 and if it is a DP, enforce adding 640x480 even w/o validation. But generally I feel that this shouldn't be necessary because the previous step should have added it.]

This way we can be sure that all modes are validated, but still to do our best to add something supported to the list of modes.

I'm partway through implementing / testing something similar to this. ;-) My logic is slightly different than yours, though. In the very least I'm not convinced that we want to add the higher resolution modes (like 1024x768) if all the modes fail to validate. The DP spec only claims 640x480 is always supported. The higher resolution modes are for when the EDID fails to read I think. Similarly I'm not convinced that we should do pruning before deciding on drm_add_override_edid_modes().

I think pruning before drm_add_override_edid_modes() would allow one to use override if the first read returned some modes which are invalid.

Yeah, I'm less certain about drm_add_override_edid_modes(), but as per documented it's only to be used if the EDID failed to read.

If someone has an actual use case where they need to add the override modes for this specific case then we can, but I think it can be done separately once someone has an actual use case.

Regarding 1024 vs 640. For the restructure we shouldn't change this. And I'd actually point to the following commit message:

commit 9632b41f00cc2fb2846569cc99dbeef78e5c94a0 Author: Adam Jackson ajax@redhat.com Date: Mon Nov 23 14:23:07 2009 -0500

 drm/modes: Fall back to 1024x768 instead of 800x600

 This matches the X server's fallback modes when using RANDR 1.2.

 See also: http://bugzilla.redhat.com/538761

 Signed-off-by: Adam Jackson <ajax@redhat.com>
 Signed-off-by: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com>

So I'd say, let's leave 1024 as is and just try them if all other modes are invalid.

I'm pretty strongly against adding 1024x768 when all modes fail to validate. Specifically:

If the EDID fully fails to read then adding these higher resolution modes makes sense. We have no knowledge at all about the display in this case and so we can guess that some standard higher resolutions might make sense. In the case we're dealing with here, we have very specific knowledge about what the display said it could handle and we can't support any of them. The DP spec _only_ lists 640x480 as a required mode so that's the only one we should add.

-Doug

On 26/04/2022 20:56, Doug Anderson wrote:

Hi,

On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 10:44 AM Dmitry Baryshkov dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org wrote:

...

On 26/04/2022 20:11, Doug Anderson wrote:

...

Hi,

On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 10:01 AM Dmitry Baryshkov dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org wrote:

...

On 26/04/2022 18:37, Abhinav Kumar wrote:

...

Hi Doug

On 4/26/2022 8:20 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:

...

Hi,

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 8:35 PM Abhinav Kumar quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com wrote: > > On 4/25/2022 7:18 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 6:42 PM Abhinav Kumar >> quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com wrote: >>> >>>>> 2) When there was a valid EDID but no 640x480 mode >>>>> >>>>> This is the equipment specific case and the one even I was a bit >>>>> surprised. There is a DP compliance equipment we have in-house >>>>> and while >>>>> validation, it was found that in its list of modes , it did not >>>>> have any >>>>> modes which chromebook supported ( due to 2 lanes ). But my >>>>> understanding was that, all sinks should have atleast 640x480 but >>>>> apparently this one did not have that. So to handle this DP >>>>> compliance >>>>> equipment behavior, we had to do this. >>>> >>>> That doesn't seem right. If there's a valid EDID and the valid EDID >>>> doesn't contain 640x480, are you _sure_ you're supposed to be adding >>>> 640x480? That doesn't sound right to me. I've got a tiny display in >>>> front of me for testing that only has one mode: >>>> >>>> #0 800x480 65.68 800 840 888 928 480 493 496 525 32000 >>>> >>> >>> As I had wrote, DRM core kicks in only when the count of modes is 0. >>> Here what is happening is the count was not 0 but 640x480 was not >>> present in the EDID. So we had to add it explicitly. >>> >>> Your tiny display is a display port display? >>> >>> I am referring to only display port monitors. If your tiny display is >>> DP, it should have had 640x480 in its list of modes. >> >> My tiny display is actually a HDMI display hooked up to a HDMI to DP >> (active) adapter. >> >> ...but this is a legal and common thing to have. I suppose possibly my >> HDMI display is "illegal"? >> >> OK, so reading through the spec more carefully, I do see that the DP >> spec makes numerous mentions of the fact that DP sinks _must_ support >> 640x480. Even going back to DP 1.4, I see section "5.2.1.2 Video >> Timing Format" says that we must support 640x480. It seems like that's >> _intended_ to be used only if the EDID read fails, though or if we >> somehow have to output video without knowledge of the EDID. It seems >> hard to believe that there's a great reason to assume a display will >> support 640x480 if we have more accurate knowledge. >> >> In any case, I guess I would still say that adding this mode belongs >> in the DRM core. The core should notice that it's a DP connection >> (bridge->type == DRM_MODE_CONNECTOR_DisplayPort) and that 640x480 was >> left out and it should add it. We should also make sure it's not >> "preferred" and is last in the list so we never accidentally pick it. >> If DP truly says that we should always give the user 640x480 then >> that's true for everyone, not just Qualcomm. We should add it in the >> core. If, later, someone wants to hide this from the UI it would be >> much easier if they only needed to modify one place. >> > > So I debugged with kuogee just now using the DP compliance equipment. > It turns out, the issue is not that 640x480 mode is not present. > > The issue is that it is not marked as preferred. > > Hence we missed this part during debugging this equipment failure. > > We still have to figure out the best way to either mark 640x480 as > preferred or eliminate other modes during the test-case so that 640x480 > is actually picked by usermode. > > Now that being said, the fix still doesn't belong in the framework. It > has to be in the msm/dp code. > > Different vendors handle this failure case differently looks like. > > Lets take below snippet from i915 as example. > > 3361 if (intel_connector->detect_edid == NULL || > 3362 connector->edid_corrupt || > 3363 intel_dp->aux.i2c_defer_count > 6) { > 3364 /* Check EDID read for NACKs, DEFERs and corruption > 3365 * (DP CTS 1.2 Core r1.1) > 3366 * 4.2.2.4 : Failed EDID read, I2C_NAK > 3367 * 4.2.2.5 : Failed EDID read, I2C_DEFER > 3368 * 4.2.2.6 : EDID corruption detected > 3369 * Use failsafe mode for all cases > 3370 */ > 3371 if (intel_dp->aux.i2c_nack_count > 0 || > 3372 intel_dp->aux.i2c_defer_count > 0) > 3373 drm_dbg_kms(&i915->drm, > 3374 "EDID read had %d NACKs, %d > DEFERs\n", > 3375 intel_dp->aux.i2c_nack_count, > 3376 intel_dp->aux.i2c_defer_count); > 3377 intel_dp->compliance.test_data.edid = > INTEL_DP_RESOLUTION_FAILSAFE;

The reason I pointed to this code is to give an example of how other drivers handle this test-case.

We added this patch for 4.2.2.1 and 4.2.2.6 EDID test cases.

The challenge here as found out from our discussion here was to mark a particular mode as preferred so that the Chrome usermode can pick it.

Now whats happening with that there was always a possibility of two modes being marked as preferred due to this and so-on.

We had a pretty long discussion last night and thought of all possible solutions but all of them look like a hack to us in the driver because we end up breaking other things due to this.

So we decided that driver is not the place to handle this test case. Since we do have IGT support for chromebooks, we will handle both these test cases there as other vendors do the same way and it works.

...

Just because Intel DRM has its own solution for something doesn't mean everyone else should copy them and implement their own solution. Up until recently DP AUX backlights were baked into different DRM drivers. A recent effort was made to pull it out. I think the Intel DRM code was the "first one" to the party and it wasn't clear how things should be broken up to share with other drivers, so mostly it did everything itself, but that's not the long term answer.

I'm not saying that we need to block your change on a full re-design or anything, but I'm just saying that:

• You're trying to implement a generic DP rule, not something specific

to Qualcomm hardware. That implies that, if possible, it shouldn't be in a Qualcomm driver.

• It doesn't seem like it would be terrible to handle this in the core.

> This marks the fail safe mode and IGT test case reads this to set this > mode and hence the test passes. > > We rely on the chromeOS usermode to output pixel data for this test-case > and not IGT. We use IGT only for video pattern CTS today but this is a > different test-case which is failing. > > ChromeOS usermode will not pick 640x480 unless we mark it as preferred > or other modes are eliminated. > > So we have to come up with the right way for the usermode to pick > 640x480. > > We will discuss this a bit more and come up with a different change.

Can you provide the exact EDID from the failing test case? Maybe that will help shed some light on what's going on. I looked at the original commit and it just referred to 4.2.2.1, which I assume is "EDID Read upon HPD Plug Event", but that doesn't give details that seem relevant to the discussion here.

Yes so it is 4.2.2.1 and 4.2.2.6.

That alone wont give the full picture.

So its a combination of things.

While running the test, the test equipment published only one mode. But we could not support that mode because of 2 lanes. Equipment did not add 640x480 to the list of modes. DRM fwk will also not add it because count_modes is not 0 ( there was one mode ). So we ended up making these changes.

I think a proper solution might be to rewrite drm_helper_probe_single_connector_modes() in the following way:

• call get_modes()

• validate the result

• prune invalid

• if the number of modes is 0, call drm_add_override_edid_modes()

• validate the result

• prune invalid

• if the number of modes is still 0, call drm_add_modes_noedid()

• validate the result

• prune invalid

[A separate change might happen here after all the checks: if the number of modes is still 0 and if it is a DP, enforce adding 640x480 even w/o validation. But generally I feel that this shouldn't be necessary because the previous step should have added it.]

This way we can be sure that all modes are validated, but still to do our best to add something supported to the list of modes.

I'm partway through implementing / testing something similar to this. ;-) My logic is slightly different than yours, though. In the very least I'm not convinced that we want to add the higher resolution modes (like 1024x768) if all the modes fail to validate. The DP spec only claims 640x480 is always supported. The higher resolution modes are for when the EDID fails to read I think. Similarly I'm not convinced that we should do pruning before deciding on drm_add_override_edid_modes().

I think pruning before drm_add_override_edid_modes() would allow one to use override if the first read returned some modes which are invalid.

Yeah, I'm less certain about drm_add_override_edid_modes(), but as per documented it's only to be used if the EDID failed to read.

If someone has an actual use case where they need to add the override modes for this specific case then we can, but I think it can be done separately once someone has an actual use case.

...

Regarding 1024 vs 640. For the restructure we shouldn't change this. And I'd actually point to the following commit message:

commit 9632b41f00cc2fb2846569cc99dbeef78e5c94a0 Author: Adam Jackson ajax@redhat.com Date: Mon Nov 23 14:23:07 2009 -0500

  drm/modes: Fall back to 1024x768 instead of 800x600

  This matches the X server's fallback modes when using RANDR 1.2.

  See also: http://bugzilla.redhat.com/538761

  Signed-off-by: Adam Jackson <ajax@redhat.com>
  Signed-off-by: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com>

So I'd say, let's leave 1024 as is and just try them if all other modes are invalid.

I'm pretty strongly against adding 1024x768 when all modes fail to validate. Specifically:

If the EDID fully fails to read then adding these higher resolution modes makes sense. We have no knowledge at all about the display in this case and so we can guess that some standard higher resolutions might make sense. In the case we're dealing with here, we have very specific knowledge about what the display said it could handle and we can't support any of them. The DP spec _only_ lists 640x480 as a required mode so that's the only one we should add.

Then this should be a DP-specific override happening after all the pruning.