[PATCH v12 09/14] drm/msm/dp: disable self_refresh_aware after entering psr

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On 07/02/2023 16:28, Vinod Polimera wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov at linaro.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 6:19 PM
>> To: Vinod Polimera (QUIC) <quic_vpolimer at quicinc.com>; dri-
>> devel at lists.freedesktop.org; linux-arm-msm at vger.kernel.org;
>> freedreno at lists.freedesktop.org; devicetree at vger.kernel.org
>> Cc: Sankeerth Billakanti (QUIC) <quic_sbillaka at quicinc.com>; linux-
>> kernel at vger.kernel.org; robdclark at gmail.com; dianders at chromium.org;
>> swboyd at chromium.org; Kalyan Thota (QUIC) <quic_kalyant at quicinc.com>;
>> Kuogee Hsieh (QUIC) <quic_khsieh at quicinc.com>; Vishnuvardhan
>> Prodduturi (QUIC) <quic_vproddut at quicinc.com>; Bjorn Andersson (QUIC)
>> <quic_bjorande at quicinc.com>; Abhinav Kumar (QUIC)
>> <quic_abhinavk at quicinc.com>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 09/14] drm/msm/dp: disable self_refresh_aware
>> after entering psr

Can we please get rid of this somehow?

>>   
>> On 30/01/2023 17:11, Vinod Polimera wrote:
>>> From: Sankeerth Billakanti <quic_sbillaka at quicinc.com>
>>>
>>> Updated frames get queued if self_refresh_aware is set when the
>>> sink is in psr. To support bridge enable and avoid queuing of update
>>> frames, reset the self_refresh_aware state after entering psr.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sankeerth Billakanti <quic_sbillaka at quicinc.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Vinod Polimera <quic_vpolimer at quicinc.com>
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_drm.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>    1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> As I stated in v11's discussion, I do not like the way this change plays
>> with the self_refresh_aware. Please find another way to work around the
>> timing issue (let's probably continue the discussion back in v11).
>>
> Currently we are not able to reproduce the issue with KASAN enabled and minimum cpu frequency builds.
> We can revisit this patch if it is reproduced in future. Meanwhile I think on handling it in a different way.
> Can we not consider this patch for current merge?

Ack.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry