Re: [PATCH] drm/msm/dp: add atomic_check to bridge ops
From: Abhinav Kumar
Date: Tue Aug 23 2022 - 18:23:29 EST
Sorry missed one response,
On 8/23/2022 3:07 PM, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
On 8/22/2022 11:33 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On 22/08/2022 20:32, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
On 8/22/2022 9:49 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On 22/08/2022 19:38, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
Hi Dmitry
On 8/22/2022 9:18 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On 17/08/2022 21:01, Kuogee Hsieh wrote:
DRM commit_tails() will disable downstream crtc/encoder/bridge if
both disable crtc is required and crtc->active is set before pushing
a new frame downstream.
There is a rare case that user space display manager issue an extra
screen update immediately followed by close DRM device while down
stream display interface is disabled. This extra screen update will
timeout due to the downstream interface is disabled but will cause
crtc->active be set. Hence the followed commit_tails() called by
drm_release() will pass the disable downstream crtc/encoder/bridge
conditions checking even downstream interface is disabled.
This cause the crash to happen at dp_bridge_disable() due to it
trying
to access the main link register to push the idle pattern out
while main
link clocks is disabled.
This patch adds atomic_check to prevent the extra frame will not
be pushed down if display interface is down so that crtc->active
will not be set neither. This will fail the conditions checking
of disabling down stream crtc/encoder/bridge which prevent
drm_release() from calling dp_bridge_disable() so that crash
at dp_bridge_disable() prevented.
I must admit I had troubles parsing this description. However if I
got you right, I think the check that the main link clock is
running in the dp_bridge_disable() or dp_ctrl_push_idle() would be
a better fix.
Originally, thats what was posted
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/496984/.
This patch is also not so correct from my POV. It checks for the hpd
status, while in reality it should check for main link clocks being
enabled.
We can push another fix to check for the clk state instead of the hpd
status. But I must say we are again just masking something which the
fwk should have avoided isnt it?
As per the doc in the include/drm/drm_bridge.h it says,
"*
* The bridge can assume that the display pipe (i.e. clocks and timing
* signals) feeding it is still running when this callback is called.
*"
Yes, that's what I meant about this chunk begging to go to the core.
In my opinion, if we are talking about the disconnected sinks, it is
the framework who should disallow submitting the frames to the
disconnected sinks.
By adding an extra layers of protection in the driver, we are just
avoiding another issue but the commit should not have been issued in
the first place.
So shouldnt we do both then? That is add protection to check if clock
is ON and also, reject commits when display is disconnected.
Then it seemed like we were just protecting against an issue in the
framework which was allowing the frames to be pushed even after the
display was disconnected. The DP driver did send out the disconnect
event correctly and as per the logs, this frame came down after
that and the DRM fwk did allow it.
So after discussing on IRC with Rob, we came up with this approach
that
if the display is not connected, then atomic_check should fail.
That way the commit will not happen.
Just seemed a bit cleaner instead of adding all our protections.
The check to fail atomic_check if display is not connected seems out
of place. In its current way it begs go to the upper layer,
forbidding using disconnected sinks for all the drivers. There is
nothing special in the MSM DP driver with respect to the HPD events
processing and failing atomic_check() based on that.
Why all the drivers? This is only for MSM DP bridge.
Yes, we change the MSM DRM driver. But the check is generic enough.
I'm not actually insisting on pushing the check to the core, just
trying to understand the real cause here.
I actually wanted to push this to the core and thats what I had
originally asked on IRC because it does seem to be generic enough that
it should belong to the core but after discussion with Rob on freedreno,
he felt this was a better approach because for some of the legacy
connectors like VGA, this need not belong to the DRM core, hence we went
with this approach.
SError Interrupt on CPU7, code 0x00000000be000411 -- SError
CPU: 7 PID: 3878 Comm: Xorg Not tainted 5.19.0-stb-cbq #19
Hardware name: Google Lazor (rev3 - 8) (DT)
pstate: a04000c9 (NzCv daIF +PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--)
pc : __cmpxchg_case_acq_32+0x14/0x2c
lr : do_raw_spin_lock+0xa4/0xdc
sp : ffffffc01092b6a0
x29: ffffffc01092b6a0 x28: 0000000000000028 x27: 0000000000000038
x26: 0000000000000004 x25: ffffffd2973dce48 x24: 0000000000000000
x23: 00000000ffffffff x22: 00000000ffffffff x21: ffffffd2978d0008
x20: ffffffd2978d0008 x19: ffffff80ff759fc0 x18: 0000000000000000
x17: 004800a501260460 x16: 0441043b04600438 x15: 04380000089807d0
x14: 07b0089807800780 x13: 0000000000000000 x12: 0000000000000000
x11: 0000000000000438 x10: 00000000000007d0 x9 : ffffffd2973e09e4
x8 : ffffff8092d53300 x7 : ffffff808902e8b8 x6 : 0000000000000001
x5 : ffffff808902e880 x4 : 0000000000000000 x3 : ffffff80ff759fc0
x2 : 0000000000000001 x1 : 0000000000000000 x0 : ffffff80ff759fc0
Kernel panic - not syncing: Asynchronous SError Interrupt
CPU: 7 PID: 3878 Comm: Xorg Not tainted 5.19.0-stb-cbq #19
Hardware name: Google Lazor (rev3 - 8) (DT)
Call trace:
dump_backtrace.part.0+0xbc/0xe4
show_stack+0x24/0x70
dump_stack_lvl+0x68/0x84
dump_stack+0x18/0x34
panic+0x14c/0x32c
nmi_panic+0x58/0x7c
arm64_serror_panic+0x78/0x84
do_serror+0x40/0x64
el1h_64_error_handler+0x30/0x48
el1h_64_error+0x68/0x6c
__cmpxchg_case_acq_32+0x14/0x2c
_raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x38/0x4c
You know, after re-reading the trace, I could not help but notice that
the issue seems to be related to completion/timer/spinlock memory
becoming unavailable rather than disabling the main link clock.
See, the SError comes in the spin_lock path, not during register read.
Thus I think the commit message is a bit misleading.
No, this issue is due to unclocked access. Please check this part of the
stack:
>>>>>> wait_for_completion_timeout+0x2c/0x54
>>>>>> dp_ctrl_push_idle+0x40/0x88
>>>>>> dp_bridge_disable+0x24/0x30
>>>>>> drm_atomic_bridge_chain_disable+0x90/0xbc
>>>>>> drm_atomic_helper_commit_modeset_disables+0x198/0x444
>>>>>> msm_atomic_commit_tail+0x1d0/0x374
>>>>>> commit_tail+0x80/0x108
>>>>>> drm_atomic_helper_commit+0x118/0x11c
>>>>>> drm_atomic_commit+0xb4/0xe0
>>>>>> drm_client_modeset_commit_atomic+0x184/0x224
>>>>>> drm_client_modeset_commit_locked+0x58/0x160
>>>>>> drm_client_modeset_commit+0x3c/0x64
Can we please get a trace checking which calls were actually made for
the dp bridge and if the dp/dp->ctrl memory pointers are correct?
I do not see the dp_display_disable() being called. Maybe I just
missed the call.
Yes it is called, please refer to the above part of the stack that I
have pasted.
lock_timer_base+0x40/0x78
__mod_timer+0xf4/0x25c
schedule_timeout+0xd4/0xfc
__wait_for_common+0xac/0x140
wait_for_completion_timeout+0x2c/0x54
dp_ctrl_push_idle+0x40/0x88
dp_bridge_disable+0x24/0x30
drm_atomic_bridge_chain_disable+0x90/0xbc
drm_atomic_helper_commit_modeset_disables+0x198/0x444
msm_atomic_commit_tail+0x1d0/0x374
commit_tail+0x80/0x108
drm_atomic_helper_commit+0x118/0x11c
drm_atomic_commit+0xb4/0xe0
drm_client_modeset_commit_atomic+0x184/0x224
drm_client_modeset_commit_locked+0x58/0x160
drm_client_modeset_commit+0x3c/0x64
__drm_fb_helper_restore_fbdev_mode_unlocked+0x98/0xac
drm_fb_helper_set_par+0x74/0x80
drm_fb_helper_hotplug_event+0xdc/0xe0
__drm_fb_helper_restore_fbdev_mode_unlocked+0x7c/0xac
drm_fb_helper_restore_fbdev_mode_unlocked+0x20/0x2c
drm_fb_helper_lastclose+0x20/0x2c
drm_lastclose+0x44/0x6c
drm_release+0x88/0xd4
__fput+0x104/0x220
____fput+0x1c/0x28
task_work_run+0x8c/0x100
do_exit+0x450/0x8d0
do_group_exit+0x40/0xac
__wake_up_parent+0x0/0x38
invoke_syscall+0x84/0x11c
el0_svc_common.constprop.0+0xb8/0xe4
do_el0_svc+0x8c/0xb8
el0_svc+0x2c/0x54
el0t_64_sync_handler+0x120/0x1c0
el0t_64_sync+0x190/0x194
SMP: stopping secondary CPUs
Kernel Offset: 0x128e800000 from 0xffffffc008000000
PHYS_OFFSET: 0x80000000
CPU features: 0x800,00c2a015,19801c82
Memory Limit: none
Fixes: 8a3b4c17f863 ("drm/msm/dp: employ bridge mechanism for
display enable and disable")
Reported-by: Leonard Lausen <leonard@xxxxxxxxx>
Suggested-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx>
Closes: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/issues/17
Signed-off-by: Kuogee Hsieh <quic_khsieh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_drm.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_drm.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_drm.c
index 6df25f7..c682588 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_drm.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_drm.c
@@ -31,6 +31,25 @@ static enum drm_connector_status
dp_bridge_detect(struct drm_bridge *bridge)
connector_status_disconnected;
}
+static int dp_bridge_atomic_check(struct drm_bridge *bridge,
+ struct drm_bridge_state *bridge_state,
+ struct drm_crtc_state *crtc_state,
+ struct drm_connector_state *conn_state)
+{
+ struct msm_dp *dp;
+
+ dp = to_dp_bridge(bridge)->dp_display;
+
+ drm_dbg_dp(dp->drm_dev, "is_connected = %s\n",
+ (dp->is_connected) ? "true" : "false");
+
+ if (bridge->ops & DRM_BRIDGE_OP_HPD)
+ return (dp->is_connected) ? 0 : -ENOTCONN;
This raises questions if this will work for the configurations when
other bridge is used for HPD events.
Let's not mix the levels of processing. If we should not disable the
link because it is already disabled, let's just do so rather than
failing the atomic_check().
This is only for MSM DP's bridge. If we use another bridge which is
capable of handling its own HPD, then that time MSM DP's bridge
shouldnt set this flag.
Not quite. The bridges set the ops to describe the ops that they
support themselves. Then the drm_bridge_connectors selects the bridge
handling hpd, etc. So the DRM_BRIDGE_OP_HPD is always set for DP
sources. But the question is quite the opposite: if we have the next
bridge (e.g. the usb-c-connector or the display-connector), will the
is_connected field be set correctly?
Ah I got your concern now, I would say Yes because looking at Bjorn's
change https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/496925/, I can see that
the next bridge would call into dp_bridge_hpd_notify() which calls
dp_display_send_hpd_notification() finally setting
dp->dp_display.is_connected to true.
We can even replace this check with just checking if connector_type
is DP but that would again open the discussion of having DP/eDP
specific checks so we did it this way.
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+
/**
* dp_bridge_get_modes - callback to add drm modes via
drm_mode_probed_add()
* @bridge: Poiner to drm bridge
@@ -61,6 +80,9 @@ static int dp_bridge_get_modes(struct
drm_bridge *bridge, struct drm_connector *
}
static const struct drm_bridge_funcs dp_bridge_ops = {
+ .atomic_duplicate_state =
drm_atomic_helper_bridge_duplicate_state,
+ .atomic_destroy_state =
drm_atomic_helper_bridge_destroy_state,
+ .atomic_reset = drm_atomic_helper_bridge_reset,
.enable = dp_bridge_enable,
.disable = dp_bridge_disable,
.post_disable = dp_bridge_post_disable,
@@ -68,6 +90,7 @@ static const struct drm_bridge_funcs
dp_bridge_ops = {
.mode_valid = dp_bridge_mode_valid,
.get_modes = dp_bridge_get_modes,
.detect = dp_bridge_detect,
+ .atomic_check = dp_bridge_atomic_check,
};
struct drm_bridge *dp_bridge_init(struct msm_dp *dp_display,
struct drm_device *dev,