Bug 109454

I understand users should not care, but I believe this is a little silly for the kernel not to tell IGT that PSR2 is unreachable through debugfs.

What do you think?

PS: This does not mean CI should not move to a PSR2-compatible panel for this gen.

/me just don't like failures in IGT that can be expected

The CI Bug Log issue associated to this bug has been updated.

### New filters associated

* fi-whl-u: igt@kms_psr@psr2_* - fail - Failed assertion: psr_wait_entry_if_enabled(data)
  - https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGTPW_2276/fi-whl-u/igt@kms_psr@psr2_primary_page_flip.html
  - https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGTPW_2276/fi-whl-u/igt@kms_psr@psr2_cursor_plane_move.html
  - https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGTPW_2276/fi-whl-u/igt@kms_psr@psr2_sprite_plane_onoff.html
  - https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGTPW_2276/fi-whl-u/igt@kms_psr@psr2_primary_mmap_gtt.html
  - https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_197/fi-whl-u/igt@kms_psr@psr2_dpms.html
  - https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_197/fi-whl-u/igt@kms_psr@psr2_suspend.html
  - https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_197/fi-whl-u/igt@kms_psr@psr2_primary_blt.html
  - https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_197/fi-whl-u/igt@kms_psr@psr2_basic.html
  - https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_197/fi-whl-u/igt@kms_psr@psr2_sprite_plane_move.html
  - https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_197/fi-whl-u/igt@kms_psr@psr2_cursor_plane_move.html
  - https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_197/fi-whl-u/igt@kms_psr@psr2_cursor_mmap_cpu.html
  - https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_197/fi-whl-u/igt@kms_psr@psr2_primary_mmap_cpu.html
  - https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_197/fi-whl-u/igt@kms_psr@psr2_sprite_blt.html
  - https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_197/fi-whl-u/igt@kms_psr@psr2_sprite_mmap_cpu.html
  - https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_197/fi-whl-u/igt@kms_psr@psr2_sprite_mmap_gtt.html
  - https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_197/fi-whl-u/igt@kms_psr@psr2_cursor_render.html
  - https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_197/fi-whl-u/igt@kms_psr@psr2_primary_render.html
  - https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_197/fi-whl-u/igt@kms_psr@psr2_primary_page_flip.html
  - https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_197/fi-whl-u/igt@kms_psr@psr2_no_drrs.html
  - https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_197/fi-whl-u/igt@kms_psr@psr2_cursor_blt.html
  - https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_197/fi-whl-u/igt@kms_psr@psr2_sprite_plane_onoff.html
  - https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_197/fi-whl-u/igt@kms_psr@psr2_sprite_render.html
  - https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_197/fi-whl-u/igt@kms_psr@psr2_cursor_plane_onoff.html
  - https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_197/fi-whl-u/igt@kms_psr@psr2_cursor_mmap_gtt.html
  - https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_197/fi-whl-u/igt@kms_psr@psr2_primary_mmap_gtt.html

The CI Bug Log issue associated to this bug has been updated.

### New filters associated

* ICL: igt@kms_cursor_legacy@2x-long-flip-vs-cursor-legacy - dmesg-fail - Poison overwritten
  - https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_191/fi-icl-u3/igt@kms_cursor_legacy@2x-long-flip-vs-cursor-legacy.html

(In reply to CI Bug Log from comment #4)
> The CI Bug Log issue associated to this bug has been updated.
> 
> ### New filters associated
> 
> * ICL: igt@kms_cursor_legacy@2x-long-flip-vs-cursor-legacy - dmesg-fail -
> Poison overwritten
>   -
> https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_191/fi-icl-u3/
> igt@kms_cursor_legacy@2x-long-flip-vs-cursor-legacy.html

This failure is reported in Bug 109458 but not 109454. CI buglog filter is updated again.

Hi Martin

Me and Vivi also thinks that make IGT aware of that, we are discussing the solution but like you said it still would be good have some PSR2 coverage in GEN9 hardware.

All failures attached to this bug are on the fi-whl-u machine and from the logs it appears the panel on this machine is considered unreliable:

  <7> [264.149232] [drm:intel_dp_compute_config [i915]] PSR sink implementation is not reliable

which causes the driver to force PSR support off.  IGT is just looking for the string "Sink support: yes [0x03]" in debugfs to know whether a panel support PSR2 or not, but maybe we should also expose the unreliable panel flag through debugfs too and have IGT also confirm that that flag is not set before attempting the test?

(In reply to Matt Roper from comment #7)
> All failures attached to this bug are on the fi-whl-u machine and from the
> logs it appears the panel on this machine is considered unreliable:
> 
>   <7> [264.149232] [drm:intel_dp_compute_config [i915]] PSR sink
> implementation is not reliable
> 
> which causes the driver to force PSR support off.  IGT is just looking for
> the string "Sink support: yes [0x03]" in debugfs to know whether a panel
> support PSR2 or not, but maybe we should also expose the unreliable panel
> flag through debugfs too and have IGT also confirm that that flag is not set
> before attempting the test?

Yeah I think is time to have something like this, thanks Matt.

-- GitLab Migration Automatic Message --

This bug has been migrated to freedesktop.org's GitLab instance and has been closed from further activity.

You can subscribe and participate further through the new bug through this link to our GitLab instance: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/213.