Re: [PATCH] drm/msm/dp: add module parameter for PSR

[Rob Clark]

On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 12:23 PM Abhinav Kumar
<quic_abhinavk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/23/2023 8:24 AM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 09:13:04PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >> On 28/04/2023 02:28, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
> >>> On sc7280 where eDP is the primary display, PSR is causing
> >>> IGT breakage even for basic test cases like kms_atomic and
> >>> kms_atomic_transition. Most often the issue starts with below
> >>> stack so providing that as reference
> >>>
> >>> Call trace:
> >>>    dpu_encoder_assign_crtc+0x64/0x6c
> >>>    dpu_crtc_enable+0x188/0x204
> >>>    drm_atomic_helper_commit_modeset_enables+0xc0/0x274
> >>>    msm_atomic_commit_tail+0x1a8/0x68c
> >>>    commit_tail+0xb0/0x160
> >>>    drm_atomic_helper_commit+0x11c/0x124
> >>>    drm_atomic_commit+0xb0/0xdc
> >>>    drm_atomic_connector_commit_dpms+0xf4/0x110
> >>>    drm_mode_obj_set_property_ioctl+0x16c/0x3b0
> >>>    drm_connector_property_set_ioctl+0x4c/0x74
> >>>    drm_ioctl_kernel+0xec/0x15c
> >>>    drm_ioctl+0x264/0x408
> >>>    __arm64_sys_ioctl+0x9c/0xd4
> >>>    invoke_syscall+0x4c/0x110
> >>>    el0_svc_common+0x94/0xfc
> >>>    do_el0_svc+0x3c/0xb0
> >>>    el0_svc+0x2c/0x7c
> >>>    el0t_64_sync_handler+0x48/0x114
> >>>    el0t_64_sync+0x190/0x194
> >>> ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
> >>> [drm-dp] dp_ctrl_push_idle: PUSH_IDLE pattern timedout
> >>>
> >>> Other basic use-cases still seem to work fine hence add a
> >>> a module parameter to allow toggling psr enable/disable till
> >>> PSR related issues are hashed out with IGT.
> >>
> >> For the reference: Bjorn reported that he has issues with VT on a
> >> PSR-enabled laptops. This patch fixes the issue for him
> >
> > Module parameters are almost never warranted, and it is definitely not
> > the right way to handle a broken implementation.
> >
> > I've just sent a revert that unconditionally disables PSR support until
> > the implementation has been fixed:
> >
> >       https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230523151646.28366-1-johan+linaro@xxxxxxxxxx/
> >
> > Johan
>
> I dont completely agree with this. Even the virtual terminal case was
> reported to be fixed by one user but not the other. So it was probably
> something missed out either in validation or reproduction steps of the
> user who reported it to be fixed OR the user who reported it not fixed.
> That needs to be investigated now.
>
> We should have ideally gone with the modparam with the feature patches
> itself knowing that it gets enabled for all sinks if PSR is supported.
>
> I had discussed with Rob that till we have some more confidence with the
> reported issues we would go with the modparam so as to not do the full
> revert.
>
> In this particular case, the one line revert is not really a deal
> breaker. In some other implementations, it might not really be so
> trivial to revert the feature with a one line change.
>
> So I would like to understand what is the concern with the mod param if
> the maintainers are onboard with it.

Tbf, I'd go further in the modparam direction, ie. add a default
disabled modparam, but then _also_ enable the modparam in CI and add
the failing tests to xfails.  I'd rather have xfails in CI than skips.

Acked-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx>

BR,
-R