As per Displayport spec section 5.2.1.2 ("Video Timing Format") says
that all detachable sinks shall support 640x480 @60Hz as a fail safe
mode.
A DP compliance test expected us to utilize the above fact when all
modes it presented to the DP source were not achievable. It presented
only modes that would be achievable with more lanes and/or higher
speeds than we had available and expected that when we couldn't do
that then we'd fall back to 640x480 even though it didn't advertise
this size.
In order to pass the compliance test (and also support any users who
might fall into a similar situation with their display), we need to
add 640x480 into the list of modes. However, we don't want to add
640x480 all the time. Despite the fact that the DP spec says all sinks
_shall support_ 640x480, they're not guaranteed to support it
_well_. Continuing to read the spec you can see that the display is
not required to really treat 640x480 equal to all the other modes. It
doesn't need to scale or anything--just display the pixels somehow for
failsafe purposes. It should also be noted that it's not hard to find
a display hooked up via DisplayPort that _doesn't_ support 640x480 at
all. The HP ZR30w screen I'm sitting in front of has a native DP port
and doesn't work at 640x480. I also plugged in a tiny 800x480 HDMI
display via a DP to HDMI adapter and that screen definitely doesn't
support 640x480.
As a compromise solution, let's only add the 640x480 mode if:
* We're on DP.
* All other modes have been pruned.
This acknowledges that 640x480 might not be the best mode to use but,
since sinks are _supposed_ to support it, we will at least fall back
to it if there's nothing else.
Note that we _don't_ add higher resolution modes like 1024x768 in this
case. We only add those modes for a failed EDID read where we have no
idea what's going on. In the case where we've pruned all modes then
instead we only want 640x480 which is the only defined "Fail Safe"
resolution.
This patch originated in response to Kuogee Hsieh's patch [1].
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <[email protected]>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c
index 819225629010..90cd46cbfec1 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c
@@ -476,7 +476,6 @@ int drm_helper_probe_single_connector_modes(struct drm_connector *connector,
const struct drm_connector_helper_funcs *connector_funcs =
connector->helper_private;
int count = 0, ret;
- bool verbose_prune = true;
enum drm_connector_status old_status;
struct drm_modeset_acquire_ctx ctx;
@@ -556,8 +555,8 @@ int drm_helper_probe_single_connector_modes(struct drm_connector *connector,
DRM_DEBUG_KMS("[CONNECTOR:%d:%s] disconnected\n",
connector->base.id, connector->name);
drm_connector_update_edid_property(connector, NULL);
- verbose_prune = false;
- goto prune;
+ drm_mode_prune_invalid(dev, &connector->modes, false);
+ goto exit;
}
count = (*connector_funcs->get_modes)(connector);
@@ -580,9 +579,26 @@ int drm_helper_probe_single_connector_modes(struct drm_connector *connector,
}
}
-prune:
- drm_mode_prune_invalid(dev, &connector->modes, verbose_prune);
+ drm_mode_prune_invalid(dev, &connector->modes, true);
+ /*
+ * Displayport spec section 5.2.1.2 ("Video Timing Format") says that
+ * all detachable sinks shall support 640x480 @60Hz as a fail safe
+ * mode. If all modes were pruned, perhaps because they need more
+ * lanes or a higher pixel clock than available, at least try to add
+ * in 640x480.
+ */
+ if (list_empty(&connector->modes) &&
+ connector->connector_type == DRM_MODE_CONNECTOR_DisplayPort) {
+ count = drm_add_modes_noedid(connector, 640, 480);
+ if (_drm_helper_update_and_validate(connector, maxX, maxY, &ctx)) {
+ drm_modeset_backoff(&ctx);
+ goto retry;
+ }
+ drm_mode_prune_invalid(dev, &connector->modes, true);
+ }
+
+exit:
drm_modeset_drop_locks(&ctx);
drm_modeset_acquire_fini(&ctx);
--
2.36.0.rc2.479.g8af0fa9b8e-goog
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 12:20 PM Abhinav Kumar
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Missed one more comment.
>
> On 4/26/2022 12:16 PM, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
> > Hi Doug
> >
> > One minor comment below.
> >
> > But otherwise, looking at this change this should work for us acc to me.
> >
> > We will test this out with our equipment and then provide R-b.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Abhinav
> > On 4/26/2022 11:46 AM, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> >> As per Displayport spec section 5.2.1.2 ("Video Timing Format") says
> >> that all detachable sinks shall support 640x480 @60Hz as a fail safe
> >> mode.
> >>
> >> A DP compliance test expected us to utilize the above fact when all
> >> modes it presented to the DP source were not achievable. It presented
> >> only modes that would be achievable with more lanes and/or higher
> >> speeds than we had available and expected that when we couldn't do
> >> that then we'd fall back to 640x480 even though it didn't advertise
> >> this size.
> >>
> >> In order to pass the compliance test (and also support any users who
> >> might fall into a similar situation with their display), we need to
> >> add 640x480 into the list of modes. However, we don't want to add
> >> 640x480 all the time. Despite the fact that the DP spec says all sinks
> >> _shall support_ 640x480, they're not guaranteed to support it
> >> _well_. Continuing to read the spec you can see that the display is
> >> not required to really treat 640x480 equal to all the other modes. It
> >> doesn't need to scale or anything--just display the pixels somehow for
> >> failsafe purposes. It should also be noted that it's not hard to find
> >> a display hooked up via DisplayPort that _doesn't_ support 640x480 at
> >> all. The HP ZR30w screen I'm sitting in front of has a native DP port
> >> and doesn't work at 640x480. I also plugged in a tiny 800x480 HDMI
> >> display via a DP to HDMI adapter and that screen definitely doesn't
> >> support 640x480.
> >>
> >> As a compromise solution, let's only add the 640x480 mode if:
> >> * We're on DP.
> >> * All other modes have been pruned.
> >>
> >> This acknowledges that 640x480 might not be the best mode to use but,
> >> since sinks are _supposed_ to support it, we will at least fall back
> >> to it if there's nothing else.
> >>
> >> Note that we _don't_ add higher resolution modes like 1024x768 in this
> >> case. We only add those modes for a failed EDID read where we have no
> >> idea what's going on. In the case where we've pruned all modes then
> >> instead we only want 640x480 which is the only defined "Fail Safe"
> >> resolution.
> >>
> >> This patch originated in response to Kuogee Hsieh's patch [1].
> >>
> >> [1]
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
> >>
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <[email protected]>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++-----
> >> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c
> >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c
> >> index 819225629010..90cd46cbfec1 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c
> >> @@ -476,7 +476,6 @@ int drm_helper_probe_single_connector_modes(struct
> >> drm_connector *connector,
> >> const struct drm_connector_helper_funcs *connector_funcs =
> >> connector->helper_private;
> >> int count = 0, ret;
> >> - bool verbose_prune = true;
> >> enum drm_connector_status old_status;
> >> struct drm_modeset_acquire_ctx ctx;
> >> @@ -556,8 +555,8 @@ int drm_helper_probe_single_connector_modes(struct
> >> drm_connector *connector,
> >> DRM_DEBUG_KMS("[CONNECTOR:%d:%s] disconnected\n",
> >> connector->base.id, connector->name);
> >> drm_connector_update_edid_property(connector, NULL);
> >> - verbose_prune = false;
> >> - goto prune;
> >> + drm_mode_prune_invalid(dev, &connector->modes, false);
> >> + goto exit;
> >> }
> >> count = (*connector_funcs->get_modes)(connector);
> >> @@ -580,9 +579,26 @@ int
> >> drm_helper_probe_single_connector_modes(struct drm_connector *connector,
> >> }
> >> }
> >> -prune:
> >> - drm_mode_prune_invalid(dev, &connector->modes, verbose_prune);
> >> + drm_mode_prune_invalid(dev, &connector->modes, true);
> >> + /*
> >> + * Displayport spec section 5.2.1.2 ("Video Timing Format") says
> >> that
> >> + * all detachable sinks shall support 640x480 @60Hz as a fail safe
> >> + * mode. If all modes were pruned, perhaps because they need more
> >> + * lanes or a higher pixel clock than available, at least try to add
> >> + * in 640x480.
> >> + */
> >> + if (list_empty(&connector->modes) &&
> >> + connector->connector_type == DRM_MODE_CONNECTOR_DisplayPort) {
> >> + count = drm_add_modes_noedid(connector, 640, 480);
> >> + if (_drm_helper_update_and_validate(connector, maxX, maxY,
> >> &ctx)) {
> >> + drm_modeset_backoff(&ctx);
> >> + goto retry;
> >
> > Do we need another retry here? This will again repeat everything from
> > get_modes().
> > The fact that we are hitting this code is because we have already tried
> > that and this is already a second-pass. So I think another retry isnt
> > needed?
>
> This will help cover the case of 4.2.2.6 but not fix 4.2.2.1.
>
> For 4.2.2.1, we will have 0 modes and so the original DRM fwk code of
> adding all modes <= 1024x768 will kick in.
>
> Now, in that list, we will still need to pick/mark 640x480 as the
> preferred mode.
>
> We still need IGT for that.
Are you sure you don't have those backwards? It seems like 4.2.2.6 is
the test case dealing with corrupt EDID and that's the one that will
still be broken, no? ...and corrupt EDID is still the case where we
have 0 modes.
In any case, let's see what people think about:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220426132121.RFC.1.I31ec454f8d4ffce51a7708a8092f8a6f9c929092@changeid
I've marked that one as RFC just because it seems like a bigger change
to existing behavior, though it still seems correct to me.
NOTE: reading 4.2.2.6 more closely, it actually looks as if we're
actually supposed to be able to try various video modes one at a time
until we find one that works (or land on 640x480). Seems as if we're
supposed to be able to try the higher resolutions one at a time and we
can tell whether the sink "accepted" it by seeing if SINK_STATUS goes
to 1? I have no idea how that works with all the Linux APIs, though.
-Doug
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 12:16 PM Abhinav Kumar
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Doug
>
> One minor comment below.
>
> But otherwise, looking at this change this should work for us acc to me.
>
> We will test this out with our equipment and then provide R-b.
>
> Thanks
>
> Abhinav
> On 4/26/2022 11:46 AM, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> > As per Displayport spec section 5.2.1.2 ("Video Timing Format") says
> > that all detachable sinks shall support 640x480 @60Hz as a fail safe
> > mode.
> >
> > A DP compliance test expected us to utilize the above fact when all
> > modes it presented to the DP source were not achievable. It presented
> > only modes that would be achievable with more lanes and/or higher
> > speeds than we had available and expected that when we couldn't do
> > that then we'd fall back to 640x480 even though it didn't advertise
> > this size.
> >
> > In order to pass the compliance test (and also support any users who
> > might fall into a similar situation with their display), we need to
> > add 640x480 into the list of modes. However, we don't want to add
> > 640x480 all the time. Despite the fact that the DP spec says all sinks
> > _shall support_ 640x480, they're not guaranteed to support it
> > _well_. Continuing to read the spec you can see that the display is
> > not required to really treat 640x480 equal to all the other modes. It
> > doesn't need to scale or anything--just display the pixels somehow for
> > failsafe purposes. It should also be noted that it's not hard to find
> > a display hooked up via DisplayPort that _doesn't_ support 640x480 at
> > all. The HP ZR30w screen I'm sitting in front of has a native DP port
> > and doesn't work at 640x480. I also plugged in a tiny 800x480 HDMI
> > display via a DP to HDMI adapter and that screen definitely doesn't
> > support 640x480.
> >
> > As a compromise solution, let's only add the 640x480 mode if:
> > * We're on DP.
> > * All other modes have been pruned.
> >
> > This acknowledges that 640x480 might not be the best mode to use but,
> > since sinks are _supposed_ to support it, we will at least fall back
> > to it if there's nothing else.
> >
> > Note that we _don't_ add higher resolution modes like 1024x768 in this
> > case. We only add those modes for a failed EDID read where we have no
> > idea what's going on. In the case where we've pruned all modes then
> > instead we only want 640x480 which is the only defined "Fail Safe"
> > resolution.
> >
> > This patch originated in response to Kuogee Hsieh's patch [1].
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <[email protected]>
> > ---
> >
> > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c
> > index 819225629010..90cd46cbfec1 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c
> > @@ -476,7 +476,6 @@ int drm_helper_probe_single_connector_modes(struct drm_connector *connector,
> > const struct drm_connector_helper_funcs *connector_funcs =
> > connector->helper_private;
> > int count = 0, ret;
> > - bool verbose_prune = true;
> > enum drm_connector_status old_status;
> > struct drm_modeset_acquire_ctx ctx;
> >
> > @@ -556,8 +555,8 @@ int drm_helper_probe_single_connector_modes(struct drm_connector *connector,
> > DRM_DEBUG_KMS("[CONNECTOR:%d:%s] disconnected\n",
> > connector->base.id, connector->name);
> > drm_connector_update_edid_property(connector, NULL);
> > - verbose_prune = false;
> > - goto prune;
> > + drm_mode_prune_invalid(dev, &connector->modes, false);
> > + goto exit;
> > }
> >
> > count = (*connector_funcs->get_modes)(connector);
> > @@ -580,9 +579,26 @@ int drm_helper_probe_single_connector_modes(struct drm_connector *connector,
> > }
> > }
> >
> > -prune:
> > - drm_mode_prune_invalid(dev, &connector->modes, verbose_prune);
> > + drm_mode_prune_invalid(dev, &connector->modes, true);
> >
> > + /*
> > + * Displayport spec section 5.2.1.2 ("Video Timing Format") says that
> > + * all detachable sinks shall support 640x480 @60Hz as a fail safe
> > + * mode. If all modes were pruned, perhaps because they need more
> > + * lanes or a higher pixel clock than available, at least try to add
> > + * in 640x480.
> > + */
> > + if (list_empty(&connector->modes) &&
> > + connector->connector_type == DRM_MODE_CONNECTOR_DisplayPort) {
> > + count = drm_add_modes_noedid(connector, 640, 480);
> > + if (_drm_helper_update_and_validate(connector, maxX, maxY, &ctx)) {
> > + drm_modeset_backoff(&ctx);
> > + goto retry;
>
> Do we need another retry here? This will again repeat everything from
> get_modes().
> The fact that we are hitting this code is because we have already tried
> that and this is already a second-pass. So I think another retry isnt
> needed?
The retry is still needed. This gets into the whole wait-wound mutexes
that DRM uses, right? Any time we detect deadlock we release all of
our locks and start from scratch. That's still possible here.
-Doug
Hi Doug
One minor comment below.
But otherwise, looking at this change this should work for us acc to me.
We will test this out with our equipment and then provide R-b.
Thanks
Abhinav
On 4/26/2022 11:46 AM, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> As per Displayport spec section 5.2.1.2 ("Video Timing Format") says
> that all detachable sinks shall support 640x480 @60Hz as a fail safe
> mode.
>
> A DP compliance test expected us to utilize the above fact when all
> modes it presented to the DP source were not achievable. It presented
> only modes that would be achievable with more lanes and/or higher
> speeds than we had available and expected that when we couldn't do
> that then we'd fall back to 640x480 even though it didn't advertise
> this size.
>
> In order to pass the compliance test (and also support any users who
> might fall into a similar situation with their display), we need to
> add 640x480 into the list of modes. However, we don't want to add
> 640x480 all the time. Despite the fact that the DP spec says all sinks
> _shall support_ 640x480, they're not guaranteed to support it
> _well_. Continuing to read the spec you can see that the display is
> not required to really treat 640x480 equal to all the other modes. It
> doesn't need to scale or anything--just display the pixels somehow for
> failsafe purposes. It should also be noted that it's not hard to find
> a display hooked up via DisplayPort that _doesn't_ support 640x480 at
> all. The HP ZR30w screen I'm sitting in front of has a native DP port
> and doesn't work at 640x480. I also plugged in a tiny 800x480 HDMI
> display via a DP to HDMI adapter and that screen definitely doesn't
> support 640x480.
>
> As a compromise solution, let's only add the 640x480 mode if:
> * We're on DP.
> * All other modes have been pruned.
>
> This acknowledges that 640x480 might not be the best mode to use but,
> since sinks are _supposed_ to support it, we will at least fall back
> to it if there's nothing else.
>
> Note that we _don't_ add higher resolution modes like 1024x768 in this
> case. We only add those modes for a failed EDID read where we have no
> idea what's going on. In the case where we've pruned all modes then
> instead we only want 640x480 which is the only defined "Fail Safe"
> resolution.
>
> This patch originated in response to Kuogee Hsieh's patch [1].
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
>
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <[email protected]>
> ---
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c
> index 819225629010..90cd46cbfec1 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c
> @@ -476,7 +476,6 @@ int drm_helper_probe_single_connector_modes(struct drm_connector *connector,
> const struct drm_connector_helper_funcs *connector_funcs =
> connector->helper_private;
> int count = 0, ret;
> - bool verbose_prune = true;
> enum drm_connector_status old_status;
> struct drm_modeset_acquire_ctx ctx;
>
> @@ -556,8 +555,8 @@ int drm_helper_probe_single_connector_modes(struct drm_connector *connector,
> DRM_DEBUG_KMS("[CONNECTOR:%d:%s] disconnected\n",
> connector->base.id, connector->name);
> drm_connector_update_edid_property(connector, NULL);
> - verbose_prune = false;
> - goto prune;
> + drm_mode_prune_invalid(dev, &connector->modes, false);
> + goto exit;
> }
>
> count = (*connector_funcs->get_modes)(connector);
> @@ -580,9 +579,26 @@ int drm_helper_probe_single_connector_modes(struct drm_connector *connector,
> }
> }
>
> -prune:
> - drm_mode_prune_invalid(dev, &connector->modes, verbose_prune);
> + drm_mode_prune_invalid(dev, &connector->modes, true);
>
> + /*
> + * Displayport spec section 5.2.1.2 ("Video Timing Format") says that
> + * all detachable sinks shall support 640x480 @60Hz as a fail safe
> + * mode. If all modes were pruned, perhaps because they need more
> + * lanes or a higher pixel clock than available, at least try to add
> + * in 640x480.
> + */
> + if (list_empty(&connector->modes) &&
> + connector->connector_type == DRM_MODE_CONNECTOR_DisplayPort) {
> + count = drm_add_modes_noedid(connector, 640, 480);
> + if (_drm_helper_update_and_validate(connector, maxX, maxY, &ctx)) {
> + drm_modeset_backoff(&ctx);
> + goto retry;
Do we need another retry here? This will again repeat everything from
get_modes().
The fact that we are hitting this code is because we have already tried
that and this is already a second-pass. So I think another retry isnt
needed?
> + }
> + drm_mode_prune_invalid(dev, &connector->modes, true);
> + }
> +
> +exit:
> drm_modeset_drop_locks(&ctx);
> drm_modeset_acquire_fini(&ctx);
>
Missed one more comment.
On 4/26/2022 12:16 PM, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
> Hi Doug
>
> One minor comment below.
>
> But otherwise, looking at this change this should work for us acc to me.
>
> We will test this out with our equipment and then provide R-b.
>
> Thanks
>
> Abhinav
> On 4/26/2022 11:46 AM, Douglas Anderson wrote:
>> As per Displayport spec section 5.2.1.2 ("Video Timing Format") says
>> that all detachable sinks shall support 640x480 @60Hz as a fail safe
>> mode.
>>
>> A DP compliance test expected us to utilize the above fact when all
>> modes it presented to the DP source were not achievable. It presented
>> only modes that would be achievable with more lanes and/or higher
>> speeds than we had available and expected that when we couldn't do
>> that then we'd fall back to 640x480 even though it didn't advertise
>> this size.
>>
>> In order to pass the compliance test (and also support any users who
>> might fall into a similar situation with their display), we need to
>> add 640x480 into the list of modes. However, we don't want to add
>> 640x480 all the time. Despite the fact that the DP spec says all sinks
>> _shall support_ 640x480, they're not guaranteed to support it
>> _well_. Continuing to read the spec you can see that the display is
>> not required to really treat 640x480 equal to all the other modes. It
>> doesn't need to scale or anything--just display the pixels somehow for
>> failsafe purposes. It should also be noted that it's not hard to find
>> a display hooked up via DisplayPort that _doesn't_ support 640x480 at
>> all. The HP ZR30w screen I'm sitting in front of has a native DP port
>> and doesn't work at 640x480. I also plugged in a tiny 800x480 HDMI
>> display via a DP to HDMI adapter and that screen definitely doesn't
>> support 640x480.
>>
>> As a compromise solution, let's only add the 640x480 mode if:
>> * We're on DP.
>> * All other modes have been pruned.
>>
>> This acknowledges that 640x480 might not be the best mode to use but,
>> since sinks are _supposed_ to support it, we will at least fall back
>> to it if there's nothing else.
>>
>> Note that we _don't_ add higher resolution modes like 1024x768 in this
>> case. We only add those modes for a failed EDID read where we have no
>> idea what's going on. In the case where we've pruned all modes then
>> instead we only want 640x480 which is the only defined "Fail Safe"
>> resolution.
>>
>> This patch originated in response to Kuogee Hsieh's patch [1].
>>
>> [1]
>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
>>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <[email protected]>
>> ---
>>
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++-----
>> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c
>> index 819225629010..90cd46cbfec1 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c
>> @@ -476,7 +476,6 @@ int drm_helper_probe_single_connector_modes(struct
>> drm_connector *connector,
>> const struct drm_connector_helper_funcs *connector_funcs =
>> connector->helper_private;
>> int count = 0, ret;
>> - bool verbose_prune = true;
>> enum drm_connector_status old_status;
>> struct drm_modeset_acquire_ctx ctx;
>> @@ -556,8 +555,8 @@ int drm_helper_probe_single_connector_modes(struct
>> drm_connector *connector,
>> DRM_DEBUG_KMS("[CONNECTOR:%d:%s] disconnected\n",
>> connector->base.id, connector->name);
>> drm_connector_update_edid_property(connector, NULL);
>> - verbose_prune = false;
>> - goto prune;
>> + drm_mode_prune_invalid(dev, &connector->modes, false);
>> + goto exit;
>> }
>> count = (*connector_funcs->get_modes)(connector);
>> @@ -580,9 +579,26 @@ int
>> drm_helper_probe_single_connector_modes(struct drm_connector *connector,
>> }
>> }
>> -prune:
>> - drm_mode_prune_invalid(dev, &connector->modes, verbose_prune);
>> + drm_mode_prune_invalid(dev, &connector->modes, true);
>> + /*
>> + * Displayport spec section 5.2.1.2 ("Video Timing Format") says
>> that
>> + * all detachable sinks shall support 640x480 @60Hz as a fail safe
>> + * mode. If all modes were pruned, perhaps because they need more
>> + * lanes or a higher pixel clock than available, at least try to add
>> + * in 640x480.
>> + */
>> + if (list_empty(&connector->modes) &&
>> + connector->connector_type == DRM_MODE_CONNECTOR_DisplayPort) {
>> + count = drm_add_modes_noedid(connector, 640, 480);
>> + if (_drm_helper_update_and_validate(connector, maxX, maxY,
>> &ctx)) {
>> + drm_modeset_backoff(&ctx);
>> + goto retry;
>
> Do we need another retry here? This will again repeat everything from
> get_modes().
> The fact that we are hitting this code is because we have already tried
> that and this is already a second-pass. So I think another retry isnt
> needed?
This will help cover the case of 4.2.2.6 but not fix 4.2.2.1.
For 4.2.2.1, we will have 0 modes and so the original DRM fwk code of
adding all modes <= 1024x768 will kick in.
Now, in that list, we will still need to pick/mark 640x480 as the
preferred mode.
We still need IGT for that.
So yes, this will cover one of the test but not the other.
>
>> + }
>> + drm_mode_prune_invalid(dev, &connector->modes, true);
>> + }
>> +
>> +exit:
>> drm_modeset_drop_locks(&ctx);
>> drm_modeset_acquire_fini(&ctx);
On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 at 21:47, Douglas Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> As per Displayport spec section 5.2.1.2 ("Video Timing Format") says
> that all detachable sinks shall support 640x480 @60Hz as a fail safe
> mode.
>
> A DP compliance test expected us to utilize the above fact when all
> modes it presented to the DP source were not achievable. It presented
> only modes that would be achievable with more lanes and/or higher
> speeds than we had available and expected that when we couldn't do
> that then we'd fall back to 640x480 even though it didn't advertise
> this size.
>
> In order to pass the compliance test (and also support any users who
> might fall into a similar situation with their display), we need to
> add 640x480 into the list of modes. However, we don't want to add
> 640x480 all the time. Despite the fact that the DP spec says all sinks
> _shall support_ 640x480, they're not guaranteed to support it
> _well_. Continuing to read the spec you can see that the display is
> not required to really treat 640x480 equal to all the other modes. It
> doesn't need to scale or anything--just display the pixels somehow for
> failsafe purposes. It should also be noted that it's not hard to find
> a display hooked up via DisplayPort that _doesn't_ support 640x480 at
> all. The HP ZR30w screen I'm sitting in front of has a native DP port
> and doesn't work at 640x480. I also plugged in a tiny 800x480 HDMI
> display via a DP to HDMI adapter and that screen definitely doesn't
> support 640x480.
>
> As a compromise solution, let's only add the 640x480 mode if:
> * We're on DP.
> * All other modes have been pruned.
>
> This acknowledges that 640x480 might not be the best mode to use but,
> since sinks are _supposed_ to support it, we will at least fall back
> to it if there's nothing else.
>
> Note that we _don't_ add higher resolution modes like 1024x768 in this
> case. We only add those modes for a failed EDID read where we have no
> idea what's going on. In the case where we've pruned all modes then
> instead we only want 640x480 which is the only defined "Fail Safe"
> resolution.
>
> This patch originated in response to Kuogee Hsieh's patch [1].
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
>
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <[email protected]>
> ---
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c
> index 819225629010..90cd46cbfec1 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c
> @@ -476,7 +476,6 @@ int drm_helper_probe_single_connector_modes(struct drm_connector *connector,
> const struct drm_connector_helper_funcs *connector_funcs =
> connector->helper_private;
> int count = 0, ret;
> - bool verbose_prune = true;
> enum drm_connector_status old_status;
> struct drm_modeset_acquire_ctx ctx;
>
> @@ -556,8 +555,8 @@ int drm_helper_probe_single_connector_modes(struct drm_connector *connector,
> DRM_DEBUG_KMS("[CONNECTOR:%d:%s] disconnected\n",
> connector->base.id, connector->name);
> drm_connector_update_edid_property(connector, NULL);
> - verbose_prune = false;
> - goto prune;
> + drm_mode_prune_invalid(dev, &connector->modes, false);
> + goto exit;
> }
>
> count = (*connector_funcs->get_modes)(connector);
> @@ -580,9 +579,26 @@ int drm_helper_probe_single_connector_modes(struct drm_connector *connector,
> }
> }
>
> -prune:
> - drm_mode_prune_invalid(dev, &connector->modes, verbose_prune);
> + drm_mode_prune_invalid(dev, &connector->modes, true);
>
> + /*
> + * Displayport spec section 5.2.1.2 ("Video Timing Format") says that
> + * all detachable sinks shall support 640x480 @60Hz as a fail safe
> + * mode. If all modes were pruned, perhaps because they need more
> + * lanes or a higher pixel clock than available, at least try to add
> + * in 640x480.
> + */
> + if (list_empty(&connector->modes) &&
> + connector->connector_type == DRM_MODE_CONNECTOR_DisplayPort) {
> + count = drm_add_modes_noedid(connector, 640, 480);
> + if (_drm_helper_update_and_validate(connector, maxX, maxY, &ctx)) {
> + drm_modeset_backoff(&ctx);
> + goto retry;
> + }
> + drm_mode_prune_invalid(dev, &connector->modes, true);
> + }
> +
> +exit:
> drm_modeset_drop_locks(&ctx);
> drm_modeset_acquire_fini(&ctx);
>
> --
> 2.36.0.rc2.479.g8af0fa9b8e-goog
>
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
Hi Doug
On 5/5/2022 8:44 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Ville,
>
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 11:47 AM Douglas Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> As per Displayport spec section 5.2.1.2 ("Video Timing Format") says
>> that all detachable sinks shall support 640x480 @60Hz as a fail safe
>> mode.
>>
>> A DP compliance test expected us to utilize the above fact when all
>> modes it presented to the DP source were not achievable. It presented
>> only modes that would be achievable with more lanes and/or higher
>> speeds than we had available and expected that when we couldn't do
>> that then we'd fall back to 640x480 even though it didn't advertise
>> this size.
>>
>> In order to pass the compliance test (and also support any users who
>> might fall into a similar situation with their display), we need to
>> add 640x480 into the list of modes. However, we don't want to add
>> 640x480 all the time. Despite the fact that the DP spec says all sinks
>> _shall support_ 640x480, they're not guaranteed to support it
>> _well_. Continuing to read the spec you can see that the display is
>> not required to really treat 640x480 equal to all the other modes. It
>> doesn't need to scale or anything--just display the pixels somehow for
>> failsafe purposes. It should also be noted that it's not hard to find
>> a display hooked up via DisplayPort that _doesn't_ support 640x480 at
>> all. The HP ZR30w screen I'm sitting in front of has a native DP port
>> and doesn't work at 640x480. I also plugged in a tiny 800x480 HDMI
>> display via a DP to HDMI adapter and that screen definitely doesn't
>> support 640x480.
>>
>> As a compromise solution, let's only add the 640x480 mode if:
>> * We're on DP.
>> * All other modes have been pruned.
>>
>> This acknowledges that 640x480 might not be the best mode to use but,
>> since sinks are _supposed_ to support it, we will at least fall back
>> to it if there's nothing else.
>>
>> Note that we _don't_ add higher resolution modes like 1024x768 in this
>> case. We only add those modes for a failed EDID read where we have no
>> idea what's going on. In the case where we've pruned all modes then
>> instead we only want 640x480 which is the only defined "Fail Safe"
>> resolution.
>>
>> This patch originated in response to Kuogee Hsieh's patch [1].
>>
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <[email protected]>
>> ---
>>
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++-----
>> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> I think this patch is fairly safe / non-controversial, but someone
> suggested you might have an opinion on it and another patch I posted
> recently [1] so I wanted to double-check. Just to be clear: I'm hoping
> to land _both_ this patch and [1]. If you don't have an opinion,
> that's OK too.
>
> Abhinav: I think maybe you're happy with this now? Would you be
> willing to give a Reviewed-by?
Yes, I have no concerns with this approach from DP spec standpoint and
in addition, kuogee has tested this out and this does help us to pass
the tests.
Although, I might be missing some historical context on why this is not
already done.
But apart from that, LGTM. Hence,
Reviewed-by: Abhinav Kumar <[email protected]>
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220426132121.RFC.1.I31ec454f8d4ffce51a7708a8092f8a6f9c929092@changeid
>
> -Doug
On 5/5/2022 10:20 AM, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
> Hi Doug
>
> On 5/5/2022 8:44 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> Ville,
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 11:47 AM Douglas Anderson
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> As per Displayport spec section 5.2.1.2 ("Video Timing Format") says
>>> that all detachable sinks shall support 640x480 @60Hz as a fail safe
>>> mode.
>>>
>>> A DP compliance test expected us to utilize the above fact when all
>>> modes it presented to the DP source were not achievable. It presented
>>> only modes that would be achievable with more lanes and/or higher
>>> speeds than we had available and expected that when we couldn't do
>>> that then we'd fall back to 640x480 even though it didn't advertise
>>> this size.
>>>
>>> In order to pass the compliance test (and also support any users who
>>> might fall into a similar situation with their display), we need to
>>> add 640x480 into the list of modes. However, we don't want to add
>>> 640x480 all the time. Despite the fact that the DP spec says all sinks
>>> _shall support_ 640x480, they're not guaranteed to support it
>>> _well_. Continuing to read the spec you can see that the display is
>>> not required to really treat 640x480 equal to all the other modes. It
>>> doesn't need to scale or anything--just display the pixels somehow for
>>> failsafe purposes. It should also be noted that it's not hard to find
>>> a display hooked up via DisplayPort that _doesn't_ support 640x480 at
>>> all. The HP ZR30w screen I'm sitting in front of has a native DP port
>>> and doesn't work at 640x480. I also plugged in a tiny 800x480 HDMI
>>> display via a DP to HDMI adapter and that screen definitely doesn't
>>> support 640x480.
>>>
>>> As a compromise solution, let's only add the 640x480 mode if:
>>> * We're on DP.
>>> * All other modes have been pruned.
>>>
>>> This acknowledges that 640x480 might not be the best mode to use but,
>>> since sinks are _supposed_ to support it, we will at least fall back
>>> to it if there's nothing else.
>>>
>>> Note that we _don't_ add higher resolution modes like 1024x768 in this
>>> case. We only add those modes for a failed EDID read where we have no
>>> idea what's going on. In the case where we've pruned all modes then
>>> instead we only want 640x480 which is the only defined "Fail Safe"
>>> resolution.
>>>
>>> This patch originated in response to Kuogee Hsieh's patch [1].
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> I think this patch is fairly safe / non-controversial, but someone
>> suggested you might have an opinion on it and another patch I posted
>> recently [1] so I wanted to double-check. Just to be clear: I'm hoping
>> to land _both_ this patch and [1]. If you don't have an opinion,
>> that's OK too.
>>
>> Abhinav: I think maybe you're happy with this now? Would you be
>> willing to give a Reviewed-by?
>
> Yes, I have no concerns with this approach from DP spec standpoint and
> in addition, kuogee has tested this out and this does help us to pass
> the tests.
>
> Although, I might be missing some historical context on why this is
> not already done.
>
> But apart from that, LGTM. Hence,
>
> Reviewed-by: Abhinav Kumar <[email protected]>
> Tested-by: Kuogee Hsieh <[email protected]>
>>
>> [1]
>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220426132121.RFC.1.I31ec454f8d4ffce51a7708a8092f8a6f9c929092@changeid
>>
>> -Doug
Ville,
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 11:47 AM Douglas Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> As per Displayport spec section 5.2.1.2 ("Video Timing Format") says
> that all detachable sinks shall support 640x480 @60Hz as a fail safe
> mode.
>
> A DP compliance test expected us to utilize the above fact when all
> modes it presented to the DP source were not achievable. It presented
> only modes that would be achievable with more lanes and/or higher
> speeds than we had available and expected that when we couldn't do
> that then we'd fall back to 640x480 even though it didn't advertise
> this size.
>
> In order to pass the compliance test (and also support any users who
> might fall into a similar situation with their display), we need to
> add 640x480 into the list of modes. However, we don't want to add
> 640x480 all the time. Despite the fact that the DP spec says all sinks
> _shall support_ 640x480, they're not guaranteed to support it
> _well_. Continuing to read the spec you can see that the display is
> not required to really treat 640x480 equal to all the other modes. It
> doesn't need to scale or anything--just display the pixels somehow for
> failsafe purposes. It should also be noted that it's not hard to find
> a display hooked up via DisplayPort that _doesn't_ support 640x480 at
> all. The HP ZR30w screen I'm sitting in front of has a native DP port
> and doesn't work at 640x480. I also plugged in a tiny 800x480 HDMI
> display via a DP to HDMI adapter and that screen definitely doesn't
> support 640x480.
>
> As a compromise solution, let's only add the 640x480 mode if:
> * We're on DP.
> * All other modes have been pruned.
>
> This acknowledges that 640x480 might not be the best mode to use but,
> since sinks are _supposed_ to support it, we will at least fall back
> to it if there's nothing else.
>
> Note that we _don't_ add higher resolution modes like 1024x768 in this
> case. We only add those modes for a failed EDID read where we have no
> idea what's going on. In the case where we've pruned all modes then
> instead we only want 640x480 which is the only defined "Fail Safe"
> resolution.
>
> This patch originated in response to Kuogee Hsieh's patch [1].
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
>
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <[email protected]>
> ---
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
I think this patch is fairly safe / non-controversial, but someone
suggested you might have an opinion on it and another patch I posted
recently [1] so I wanted to double-check. Just to be clear: I'm hoping
to land _both_ this patch and [1]. If you don't have an opinion,
that's OK too.
Abhinav: I think maybe you're happy with this now? Would you be
willing to give a Reviewed-by?
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220426132121.RFC.1.I31ec454f8d4ffce51a7708a8092f8a6f9c929092@changeid
-Doug
On Thu, 5 May 2022 at 20:30, Kuogee Hsieh <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> On 5/5/2022 10:20 AM, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
> > Hi Doug
> >
> > On 5/5/2022 8:44 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> >> Ville,
> >>
> >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 11:47 AM Douglas Anderson
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> As per Displayport spec section 5.2.1.2 ("Video Timing Format") says
> >>> that all detachable sinks shall support 640x480 @60Hz as a fail safe
> >>> mode.
> >>>
> >>> A DP compliance test expected us to utilize the above fact when all
> >>> modes it presented to the DP source were not achievable. It presented
> >>> only modes that would be achievable with more lanes and/or higher
> >>> speeds than we had available and expected that when we couldn't do
> >>> that then we'd fall back to 640x480 even though it didn't advertise
> >>> this size.
> >>>
> >>> In order to pass the compliance test (and also support any users who
> >>> might fall into a similar situation with their display), we need to
> >>> add 640x480 into the list of modes. However, we don't want to add
> >>> 640x480 all the time. Despite the fact that the DP spec says all sinks
> >>> _shall support_ 640x480, they're not guaranteed to support it
> >>> _well_. Continuing to read the spec you can see that the display is
> >>> not required to really treat 640x480 equal to all the other modes. It
> >>> doesn't need to scale or anything--just display the pixels somehow for
> >>> failsafe purposes. It should also be noted that it's not hard to find
> >>> a display hooked up via DisplayPort that _doesn't_ support 640x480 at
> >>> all. The HP ZR30w screen I'm sitting in front of has a native DP port
> >>> and doesn't work at 640x480. I also plugged in a tiny 800x480 HDMI
> >>> display via a DP to HDMI adapter and that screen definitely doesn't
> >>> support 640x480.
> >>>
> >>> As a compromise solution, let's only add the 640x480 mode if:
> >>> * We're on DP.
> >>> * All other modes have been pruned.
> >>>
> >>> This acknowledges that 640x480 might not be the best mode to use but,
> >>> since sinks are _supposed_ to support it, we will at least fall back
> >>> to it if there's nothing else.
> >>>
> >>> Note that we _don't_ add higher resolution modes like 1024x768 in this
> >>> case. We only add those modes for a failed EDID read where we have no
> >>> idea what's going on. In the case where we've pruned all modes then
> >>> instead we only want 640x480 which is the only defined "Fail Safe"
> >>> resolution.
> >>>
> >>> This patch originated in response to Kuogee Hsieh's patch [1].
> >>>
> >>> [1]
> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <[email protected]>
> >>> ---
> >>>
> >>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++-----
> >>> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> I think this patch is fairly safe / non-controversial, but someone
> >> suggested you might have an opinion on it and another patch I posted
> >> recently [1] so I wanted to double-check. Just to be clear: I'm hoping
> >> to land _both_ this patch and [1]. If you don't have an opinion,
> >> that's OK too.
> >>
> >> Abhinav: I think maybe you're happy with this now? Would you be
> >> willing to give a Reviewed-by?
> >
> > Yes, I have no concerns with this approach from DP spec standpoint and
> > in addition, kuogee has tested this out and this does help us to pass
> > the tests.
> >
> > Although, I might be missing some historical context on why this is
> > not already done.
> >
> > But apart from that, LGTM. Hence,
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Abhinav Kumar <[email protected]>
> > Tested-by: Kuogee Hsieh <[email protected]>
This line got wrong quotation level, so it will not be noticed by
patchwork (and can be easily missed by other people too). Please
resend.
> >>
> >> [1]
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220426132121.RFC.1.I31ec454f8d4ffce51a7708a8092f8a6f9c929092@changeid
> >>
> >> -Doug
--
With best wishes
Dmitry