Re: [Freedreno] [PATCH] drm/msm/dp: make eDP panel as the first connected connector

[Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com>]

On 6/29/2022 6:57 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 5:36 PM Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 1:14 PM Dmitry Baryshkov
>> <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 28 June 2022 18:20:06 GMT+03:00, Kuogee Hsieh <quic_khsieh@quicinc.com> wrote:
>>>> Some userspace presumes that the first connected connector is the main
>>>> display, where it's supposed to display e.g. the login screen. For
>>>> laptops, this should be the main panel.
>>>>
>>>> This patch call drm_helper_move_panel_connectors_to_head() after
>>>> drm_bridge_connector_init() to make sure eDP stay at head of
>>>> connected connector list. This fixes unexpected corruption happen
>>>> at eDP panel if eDP is not placed at head of connected connector
>>>> list.
>>>
>>> The change itself is a good fix anyway. (And I'd ack it.) However I would like to understand why does it fix the corruption issue. What is we have eDP and DSI, with DSI ending up before the eDP? Would we see the issue?
>>> Also could you please describe the mind of corruption you are observing?
>>
>> I've spent a whole bunch of time poking at this and in the end my
>> conclusion is this:
>>
>> 1. The glitchyness seems to be a result of the Chrome OS userspace
>> somehow telling the kernel to do something wrong.
>>
>> 2. I believe (though I have no proof other than Kuogee's patch fixing
>> things) that the Chrome OS userspace is simply confused by the eDP
>> connector being second. This would imply that Kuogee's patch is
>> actually the right one.
>>
>> 3. It would be ideal if the Chrome OS userspace were fixed to handle
>> this, but it's an area of code that I've never looked at. It also
>> seems terribly low priority to fix since apparently other OSes have
>> similar problems (seems like this code was originally added by
>> RedHat?)
>>
>>
>> Specifically, I tested with a similar but "persistent" glitch that I
>> reproduced. The glitch Kuogee was digging into was a transitory glitch
>> on the eDP (internal) display when you plugged in a DP (external)
>> display. It would show up for a frame or two and then be fixed. I can
>> get a similar-looking glitch (vertical black and white bars) that
>> persists by doing these steps on a Chrome OS device (and Chrome OS
>> kernel):
>>
>> a) Observe screen looks good.
>> b) Observe DP not connected.
>> c) Plug in DP
>> d) See transitory glitch on screen, then it all looks fine.
>> e) set_power_policy --ac_screen_dim_delay=5 --ac_screen_off_delay=10
>> f) Wait for screen to turn off
>> g) Unplug DP
>> h) Hit key on keyboard to wake device.
>> i) See glitchy.
>> j) Within 5 seconds: set_power_policy --ac_screen_dim_delay=5000
>> --ac_screen_off_delay=10000
>>
>> Once I'm in the persistent glitch:
>>
>> * The "screenshot" command in Chrome OS shows corruption. Not exactly
>> black and white bars, but the image produced has distinct bands of
>> garbage.
>>
>> * I can actually toggle between VT2 and the main screen (VT1). Note
>> that VT1/VT2 are not quite the normal Linux managed solution--I
>> believe they're handled by frecon. In any case, when I switch to VT2
>> it looks normal (I can see the login prompt). Then back to VT1 and the
>> vertical bars glitch. Back to VT2 and it's normal. Back to VT1 and the
>> glitch again. This implies (especially with the extra evidence of
>> screenshot) that the display controller hardware is all fine and that
>> it's the underlying data that's somehow messed up.
> 
> fwiw, from looking at this a bit w/ Doug, I think the "glitch" is
> simply just an un-renderered buffer being interpreted by the display
> controller as UBWC (because userspace tells it to)
> 
> BR,
> -R

Acked and agree with the comments both of you have stated and looking at 
the corrupted buffers in the snapshot.

Hence,

Reviewed-by: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com>

> 
>> When I pick Kuogee's patch then this "persistent" glitch goes away
>> just like the transitory one does.
>>
>> I'm going to go ahead and do:
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
>> Tested-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>