drm/i915/psr: Make idle_frames sensible again

drm/i915/psr: Make idle_frames sensible again

This reverts

commit f71a43639e36b9f64aa2a0dd6883c619253129f9
Author: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Date:   Mon Dec 7 14:45:20 2015 -0800

    drm/i915: Fix idle_frames counter.

and

commit 0ab9f7fce5de96bf01aa0201e18267704c4da70f
Author: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Date:   Tue Jul 7 16:28:55 2015 -0700

    drm/i915: PSR: Increase idle_frames

and implements

commit 2cc771a15f44aefcc47f127883000f7fdca44727
Author: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Date:   Fri Nov 14 08:52:31 2014 -0800

    drm/i915: HSW/BDW PSR Set idle_frames = VBT + 1

without the hack to use 2 idle frames when VBT says 1. We keep the + 1
just for safety, although I haven't really figured out why that one
exists.

It's nonsense. idle_frames = number of frames where the screen is
entirely idle before we think about entering PSR.

idle_patter = part of link training, and we probably totally butchered
link training because we told the hw to entirely skip it. No wonder
PSR occasionally just fell over.

I suspect the reason we've increased idle frames is that it makes PSR
entry slightly less likely, and more likely to happen in a quite
system, which probably increased the changes the panel came back up
without link training. The proper fix is to implement link training
for PSR.

Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Cc: Sonika Jindal <sonika.jindal@intel.com>
Cc: Durgadoss R <durgadoss.r@intel.com>
Cc: "Pandiyan, Dhinakaran" <dhinakaran.pandiyan@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Tested-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
Link: http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/1463590036-17824-3-git-send-email-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch