similar to: [PATCH v2 00/18] drm/i915: Pimp DP DFP handling

This adds support for querying the maximum clock rate of a downstream port on a DisplayPort connection. Generally, downstream ports refer to active dongles which can have their own pixel clock limits. Note as well, we also start marking the connector as disconnected if we can't read the DPCD, since we wouldn't be able to do anything without DPCD access anyway. Signed-off-by: Lyude Paul

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 05:05:10PM -0400, Lyude Paul wrote: > While I thought I had this correct (since it actually did reject modes > like I expected during testing), Ville Syrjala from Intel pointed out > that the logic here isn't correct. max_clock refers to the max symbol > rate supported by the encoder, so limiting clock to ds_clock using max() > doesn't make sense.

On Fri, 2020-08-21 at 01:37 +0300, Imre Deak wrote: > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 05:34:15PM -0400, Lyude Paul wrote: > > (adding Ville and Imre to the cc here, they might be interested to know > > about > > this, comments down below) > > > > On Wed, 2020-08-19 at 11:15 -0400, Sean Paul wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 04:04:50PM -0400, Lyude Paul wrote:

On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 01:54:13PM -0400, Lyude Paul wrote: > On Mon, 2020-09-28 at 16:01 +0300, Ville Syrj?l? wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 05:05:10PM -0400, Lyude Paul wrote: > > > While I thought I had this correct (since it actually did reject modes > > > like I expected during testing), Ville Syrjala from Intel pointed out > > > that the logic here

(adding Ville and Imre to the cc here, they might be interested to know about this, comments down below) On Wed, 2020-08-19 at 11:15 -0400, Sean Paul wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 04:04:50PM -0400, Lyude Paul wrote: > > We're going to be doing the same probing process in nouveau for > > determining downstream DP port capabilities, so let's deduplicate the > > work

Can we use 6bpc on arbitrary DP monitors, or is there a capability for it? Maybe only use 6bpc if display_info.bpc == 6 and otherwise use 8? On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:06 PM Lyude Paul <lyude at redhat.com> wrote: > > While I thought I had this correct (since it actually did reject modes > like I expected during testing), Ville Syrjala from Intel pointed out > that the logic here

We're going to be doing the same probing process in nouveau for determining downstream DP port capabilities, so let's deduplicate the work by moving i915's code for handling this into a shared helper: drm_dp_read_downstream_info(). Note that when we do this, we also do make some functional changes while we're at it: * We always clear the downstream port info before trying to read

On Mon, 2020-09-28 at 16:01 +0300, Ville Syrj?l? wrote: > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 05:05:10PM -0400, Lyude Paul wrote: > > While I thought I had this correct (since it actually did reject modes > > like I expected during testing), Ville Syrjala from Intel pointed out > > that the logic here isn't correct. max_clock refers to the max symbol > > rate supported by the

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 05:34:15PM -0400, Lyude Paul wrote: > (adding Ville and Imre to the cc here, they might be interested to know about > this, comments down below) > > On Wed, 2020-08-19 at 11:15 -0400, Sean Paul wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 04:04:50PM -0400, Lyude Paul wrote: > > > We're going to be doing the same probing process in nouveau for > >

Most of the reason I'm asking for an RFC here is because this code pulls a lot of code out of i915 and into shared DP helpers. Anyway-nouveau's HPD related code has been collecting dust for a while. Other then the occasional runtime PM related and MST related fixes, we're missing a lot of nice things that have been added to DRM since this was originally written. Additionally, the code

On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 04:04:50PM -0400, Lyude Paul wrote: > We're going to be doing the same probing process in nouveau for > determining downstream DP port capabilities, so let's deduplicate the > work by moving i915's code for handling this into a shared helper: > drm_dp_downstream_read_info(). > > Note that when we do this, we also do make some functional

While I thought I had this correct (since it actually did reject modes like I expected during testing), Ville Syrjala from Intel pointed out that the logic here isn't correct. max_clock refers to the max symbol rate supported by the encoder, so limiting clock to ds_clock using max() doesn't make sense. Additionally, we want to check against 6bpc for the time being since that's the

Ville also pointed out that I got a lot of the logic here wrong as well, whoops. While I don't think anyone's likely using 3D output with nouveau, the next patch will make nouveau_conn_mode_valid() make a lot less sense. So, let's just get rid of it and open-code it like before, while taking care to move the 3D frame packing calculations on the dot clock into the right place.

On Tue, 2020-09-22 at 17:10 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > Can we use 6bpc on arbitrary DP monitors, or is there a capability for > it? Maybe only use 6bpc if display_info.bpc == 6 and otherwise use 8? I don't think that display_info.bpc actually implies a minimum bpc, only a maximum bpc iirc (Ville would know the answer to this one). The other thing to note here is that we want to assume

We're going to be doing the same probing process in nouveau for determining downstream DP port capabilities, so let's deduplicate the work by moving i915's code for handling this into a shared helper: drm_dp_downstream_read_info(). Note that when we do this, we also do make some functional changes while we're at it: * We always clear the downstream port info before trying to read

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 09:36:50AM -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > This should probably be fixed to account for the scenario where an > HDMI connector is plugged directly into the DP++ port. I don't think > the dp.subconnector property will be valid in that case. > (Unfortunately I don't remember how one detects that particular > situation.) One may or may not be able to detect

We're going to be doing the same probing process in nouveau for determining downstream DP port capabilities, so let's deduplicate the work by moving i915's code for handling this into a shared helper: drm_dp_downstream_read_info(). Note that when we do this, we also do make some functional changes while we're at it: * We always clear the downstream port info before trying to read

To start off: this patch series is less work to review then it looks - most (but not all) of the nouveau related work has already been reviewed elsewhere. Most of the reason I'm asking for an RFC here is because this code pulls a lot of code out of i915 and into shared DP helpers. Anyway-nouveau's HPD related code has been collecting dust for a while. Other then the occasional runtime PM

Since DP-specific information is stored in driver's structures, every driver needs to implement subconnector property by itself. Reviewed-by: Emil Velikov <emil.velikov at collabora.com> Signed-off-by: Oleg Vasilev <oleg.vasilev at intel.com> Cc: Ben Skeggs <bskeggs at redhat.com> Cc: nouveau at lists.freedesktop.org --- drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_connector.c | 13

Most of the reason I'm asking for an RFC here is because this code pulls a lot of code out of i915 and into shared DP helpers. Anyway-nouveau's HPD related code has been collecting dust for a while. Other then the occasional runtime PM related and MST related fixes, we're missing a lot of nice things that have been added to DRM since this was originally written. Additionally, the code