Re: [PATCH v4 29/78] drm/vc4: crtc: Add a delay after disabling the PixelValve output

[Maxime Ripard]

On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 06:31:07PM +0200, Stefan Wahren wrote:
> Hi Maxime,
> 
> Am 01.09.20 um 11:58 schrieb Maxime Ripard:
> > Hi Stefan
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 11:30:58PM +0200, Stefan Wahren wrote:
> >> Am 25.08.20 um 17:06 schrieb Maxime Ripard:
> >>> Hi Stefan,
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 05:50:31PM +0200, Stefan Wahren wrote:
> >>>> Am 29.07.20 um 16:42 schrieb Maxime Ripard:
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 03:09:21PM +0100, Dave Stevenson wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 18:43, Maxime Ripard <maxime@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>> In order to avoid pixels getting stuck in the (unflushable) FIFO between
> >>>>>>> the HVS and the PV, we need to add some delay after disabling the PV output
> >>>>>>> and before disabling the HDMI controller. 20ms seems to be good enough so
> >>>>>>> let's use that.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_crtc.c | 2 ++
> >>>>>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_crtc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_crtc.c
> >>>>>>> index d0b326e1df0a..7b178d67187f 100644
> >>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_crtc.c
> >>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_crtc.c
> >>>>>>> @@ -403,6 +403,8 @@ static void vc4_crtc_atomic_disable(struct drm_crtc *crtc,
> >>>>>>>         ret = wait_for(!(CRTC_READ(PV_V_CONTROL) & PV_VCONTROL_VIDEN), 1);
> >>>>>>>         WARN_ONCE(ret, "Timeout waiting for !PV_VCONTROL_VIDEN\n");
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> +       mdelay(20);
> >>>>>> mdelay for 20ms seems a touch unfriendly as it's a busy wait. Can we
> >>>>>> not msleep instead?
> >>>>> Since the timing was fairly critical, sleeping didn't seem like a good
> >>>>> solution since there's definitely some chance you overshoot and end up
> >>>>> with a higher time than the one you targeted.
> >>>> usleep_range(min, max) isn't a solution?
> >>> My understanding of usleep_range was that you can still overshoot, even
> >>> though it's backed by an HR timer so the resolution is not a jiffy. Are
> >>> we certain that we're going to be in that range?
> >> you are right there is no guarantee about the upper wake up time.
> >>
> >> And it's not worth the effort to poll the FIFO state until its empty
> >> (using 20 ms as timeout)?
> > I know this isn't really a great argument there, but getting this to
> > work has been quite painful, and the timing is very sensitive. If we
> > fail to wait for enough time, there's going to be a pixel shift that we
> > can't get rid of unless we reboot, which is pretty bad (and would fail
> > any CI test that checks for the output integrity).
> >
> > I know busy-looping for 20ms isn't ideal, but it's not really in a
> > hot-path (it's only done when changing a mode), with the sync time of
> > the display likely to be much more than that, and if it can avoid having
> > to look into it ever again or avoid random failures, I'd say it's worth
> > it.
> 
> i don't want to delay this series.
> 
> Could you please add a small comment to the delay to clarify the timing
> is very sensitive?

I will, thanks!
Maxime

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature