On Thu, 26 Jun 2025, Imre Deak <imre.d...@intel.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 12:12:11PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2025, Imre Deak <imre.d...@intel.com> wrote:
>> > From: Imre Deak <imre.d...@gmail.com>
>> >
>> > An AUX access failure during HPD IRQ handling should be handled by
>> > falling back to a full connector detection, ensure that if the failure
>> > happens while reading/acking a device service IRQ.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Imre Deak <imre.d...@gmail.com>
>> > ---
>> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c | 21 +++++++++++++++------
>> > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c
>> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c
>> > index 7793a72983abd..7eb208d2c321b 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c
>> > @@ -5393,16 +5393,20 @@ void intel_dp_check_link_state(struct intel_dp
>> > *intel_dp)
>> > intel_encoder_link_check_queue_work(encoder, 0);
>> > }
>> >
>> > -static void intel_dp_check_device_service_irq(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
>> > +static bool intel_dp_check_device_service_irq(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
>>
>> I don't think "check" is very intuitive in function names. Check
>> something, but then what? Is it like an assert or does it do something
>> active or what?
>>
>> What does a boolean return from a check function mean?
>>
>> It's not obvious to the reader at all.
>
> I agree, but in this patch I didn't want to change the function name.
Arguably adding a return value changes the meaning already...
>
>>
>> > {
>> > struct intel_display *display = to_intel_display(intel_dp);
>> > u8 val;
>> >
>> > if (drm_dp_dpcd_readb(&intel_dp->aux,
>> > - DP_DEVICE_SERVICE_IRQ_VECTOR, &val) != 1 || !val)
>> > - return;
>> > + DP_DEVICE_SERVICE_IRQ_VECTOR, &val) != 1)
>> > + return true;
>>
>> Looks like true means the check failed... while usually true for boolean
>> functions means success.
>
> The function returns true as before if a full connector detection is needed.
But it didn't return anything before! And that meaning is not conveyed
to the reader in *any* reasonable way!
The absolute minimum is to add a comment (mind you, kernel-doc is
overkill) stating what the return value means.
>
>>
>> >
>> > - drm_dp_dpcd_writeb(&intel_dp->aux, DP_DEVICE_SERVICE_IRQ_VECTOR, val);
>> > + if (!val)
>> > + return false;
>> > +
>> > + if (drm_dp_dpcd_writeb(&intel_dp->aux, DP_DEVICE_SERVICE_IRQ_VECTOR,
>> > val) != 1)
>> > + return true;
>> >
>> > if (val & DP_AUTOMATED_TEST_REQUEST)
>> > intel_dp_test_request(intel_dp);
>>
>> Whoa, it's not a *check* function at all?! It actually *handles* the
>> service irqs.
>>
>> Can we rephrase the function name?
>
> I want to keep the function name in this patch. In the following patches
> I will separate this part and rename it to
> intel_dp_get_and_ack_device_service_irq().
Right, saw that now. But even for that function name the meaning of the
return value is ambiguous.
BR,
Jani.
>
>
>> int intel_dp_handle_device_service_irq() and int returns maybe?
>> BR,
>> Jani.
>>
>> > @@ -5412,6 +5416,8 @@ static void intel_dp_check_device_service_irq(struct
>> > intel_dp *intel_dp)
>> >
>> > if (val & DP_SINK_SPECIFIC_IRQ)
>> > drm_dbg_kms(display->drm, "Sink specific irq unhandled\n");
>> > +
>> > + return false;
>> > }
>> >
>> > static bool intel_dp_check_link_service_irq(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
>> > @@ -5476,8 +5482,11 @@ intel_dp_short_pulse(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
>> > /* No need to proceed if we are going to do full detect */
>> > return false;
>> >
>> > - intel_dp_check_device_service_irq(intel_dp);
>> > - reprobe_needed = intel_dp_check_link_service_irq(intel_dp);
>> > + if (intel_dp_check_device_service_irq(intel_dp))
>> > + reprobe_needed = true;
>> > +
>> > + if (intel_dp_check_link_service_irq(intel_dp))
>> > + reprobe_needed = true;
>> >
>> > /* Handle CEC interrupts, if any */
>> > drm_dp_cec_irq(&intel_dp->aux);
>>
>> --
>> Jani Nikula, Intel
--
Jani Nikula, Intel
