Re: [PATCH] drm/mgag200: sleep instead of busy wait for BMC

[Jocelyn Falempe <jfalempe@redhat.com>]

On 29/01/2026 18:35, Jacob Keller wrote:
> On 1/29/2026 12:15 AM, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/mgag200/mgag200_bmc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ 
>>> mgag200/mgag200_bmc.c
>>> index a689c71ff165..599b710bab9b 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/mgag200/mgag200_bmc.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/mgag200/mgag200_bmc.c
>>> @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
>>>   // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
>>>   #include <linux/delay.h>
>>> +#include <linux/iopoll.h>
>>>   #include <drm/drm_atomic_helper.h>
>>>   #include <drm/drm_edid.h>
>>> @@ -12,7 +13,7 @@
>>>   void mgag200_bmc_stop_scanout(struct mga_device *mdev)
>>>   {
>>>       u8 tmp;
>>> -    int iter_max;
>>> +    int ret;
>>>       /*
>>>        * 1 - The first step is to inform the BMC of an upcoming mode
>>> @@ -44,28 +45,20 @@ void mgag200_bmc_stop_scanout(struct mga_device 
>>> *mdev)
>>>        * 3a- The third step is to verify if there is an active scan.
>>>        * We are waiting for a 0 on remhsyncsts <XSPAREREG<0>).
>>>        */
>>
>> Either these comments or the original test seems incorrect.
>>
>> The test below is supposed to detect whether the BMC is scanning out 
>> from the framebuffer. While it reads a horizontal scanline the bit 
>> should be 0. That's what the test is for, but it gets the condition 
>> wrong.
>>
>>> -    iter_max = 300;
>>> -    while (!(tmp & 0x1) && iter_max) {
>>> -        WREG8(DAC_INDEX, MGA1064_SPAREREG);
>>> -        tmp = RREG8(DAC_DATA);
>>> -        udelay(1000);
>>> -        iter_max--;
>>> -    }
>>> +    ret = read_poll_timeout(RREG_DAC, tmp, !(tmp & 0x1),
>>> +                1000, 300000, false,
>>> +                MGA1064_SPAREREG);
>>
>> The original while loop ran as long as "!(tmp & 0x1)".  And now the 
>> test stops if "!(tmp & 0x1)" AFAICT.  This (accidentally?) fixes the 
>> test and makes the comment correct.
>>
>>
>>> +    if (ret == -ETIMEDOUT)
>>> +        return;
>>>       /*
>>>        * 3b- This step occurs only if the remove is actually
>>
>> Since you're at it, maybe fix this comment to say
>>
>> '... only if the remote BMC is ...'
>>
>>>        * scanning. We are waiting for the end of the frame which is
>>>        * a 1 on remvsyncsts (XSPAREREG<1>)
>>>        */
>>> -    if (iter_max) {
>>> -        iter_max = 300;
>>> -        while ((tmp & 0x2) && iter_max) {
>>> -            WREG8(DAC_INDEX, MGA1064_SPAREREG);
>>> -            tmp = RREG8(DAC_DATA);
>>> -            udelay(1000);
>>> -            iter_max--;
>>> -        }
>>> -    }
>>> +    (void)read_poll_timeout(RREG_DAC, tmp, (tmp & 0x2),
>>> +                1000, 300000, false,
>>> +                MGA1064_SPAREREG);
>>
>> Again, the comment and original code disagree and the original test 
>> condition appears to be inverted. It whats to test of the BMC has 
>> finished scanning out the final frame. The bit should turn 1. Instead 
>> it tests if the bit is already 1, which is likely true. Hence that's 
>> probably where your 300 msec delays comes from.
>>
>> Best regards
>> Thomas
>>
> @Dave or @Jocelyn, any chance one of you could help me figure out 
> whether Thomas is correct here? It does seem likely that the conditions 
> were originally inverted and thus forcing a wait for 300msec every time 
> regardless. That does match my experience... But I don't have (and web 
> searches failed to find) any relevant datasheets...

I will give it a try tomorrow, on my test machine, and check what this 
register value is in this case.
Regarding documentation, I've only seen the original documentation for 
the Matrox AGP card from 1999, but I never seen one with the BMC registers.

 From what I understand this code is only there to wait enough time. As
mgag200_bmc_stop_scanout() is only called on hotplug, we could even 
replace that part with a msleep(300);

-- 

Jocelyn

> 
> I guess I can switch the conditions back such that we match the original 
> code and sleep.. but it does seem likely that we really don't need to 
> wait for the 300msec, but actually just that the scanout is done and the 
> conditions were wrong..
> 
> Obviously we need a v2 with either the conditions matched to the 
> original code or I'll need to re-write the commit message.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jake
>