Comment # 72
on bug 110674
from Tom B
> The nasty displayport mst thingy? I would always set this to false. I don't believe mst is being used here, it's two monitors both with separate cables. Here's some additional investigation. [SetUclkToHightestDpmLevel] Set hard min uclk failed! Appears as one of the first errors in dmesg. This is from vega20_hwmgr.c:3354 and triggered by: PP_ASSERT_WITH_CODE(!(ret = smum_send_msg_to_smc_with_parameter(hwmgr, PPSMC_MSG_SetHardMinByFreq, (PPCLK_UCLK << 16 ) | dpm_table->dpm_state.hard_min_level)), "[SetUclkToHightestDpmLevel] Set hard min uclk failed!", return ret); hard_min_level is adjusted if disable_mclk_switching is set on line 3497. disable_mclk_switching = ((1 < hwmgr->display_config->num_display) && !hwmgr->display_config->multi_monitor_in_sync) || vblank_too_short; /* Hardmin is dependent on displayconfig */ if (disable_mclk_switching) { dpm_table->dpm_state.hard_min_level = dpm_table->dpm_levels[dpm_table->count - 1].value; for (i = 0; i < data->mclk_latency_table.count - 1; i++) { if (data->mclk_latency_table.entries[i].latency <= latency) { if (dpm_table->dpm_levels[i].value >= (hwmgr->display_config->min_mem_set_clock / 100)) { dpm_table->dpm_state.hard_min_level = dpm_table->dpm_levels[i].value; break; } } } } Interestingly, this also checks for the presence of multiple displays so we at least have a connection between the code, error message and cause of the bug (multiple displays). As a very crude test, I tried forcing it on and compiling with disable_mclk_switching = true; No difference, so I also tried: disable_mclk_switching = false; Again, it didn't help. I will note that this code is identical in 5.0.13 so my test was really only checking for an incorrect value being set elsewhere in hwmgr->display_config->multi_monitor_in_sync or hwmgr->display_config->num_display. In 5.0.13 I do get mclk boosting, It idles at 351mhz and boosts to 1001mhz so I don't think that forcing the memory to max clock all the time is the correct solution. I also diff'd vega20_hwmgr.c from 5.0.13 and 5.2.7 (I'll attach it). Here's a few things I noticed: in vega20_init_smc_table, this line has been added in this commit https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/f5e79735cab448981e245a41ee6cbebf0e334f61 : + data->vbios_boot_state.fclock = boot_up_values.ulFClk; I don't know what fclock is, but this was never set in 5.0.13. in vega20_setup_default_dpm_tables: @@ -710,8 +729,10 @@ static int vega20_setup_default_dpm_tables(struct pp_hwmgr *hwmgr) PP_ASSERT_WITH_CODE(!ret, "[SetupDefaultDpmTable] failed to get fclk dpm levels!", return ret); - } else - dpm_table->count = 0; + } else { + dpm_table->count = 1; + dpm_table->dpm_levels[0].value = data->vbios_boot_state.fclock / 100; + } in 5.0.13, dpm_table->count is set to 0, in 5.2.7 it's set and a dpm_level added based on fclock. fclock appears throughout as a new addition. I don't think this is the cause, but the addition of fclock may be worth exploring.
You are receiving this mail because:
- You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
