On Tue, 01 Sep 2015, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 05:11:45PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 02:13:01PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: >> > On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 11:14:43AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:55:06PM +0300, ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> > > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > > > >> > > > Calculate the number of retries we should do for each i2c-over-aux >> > > > message based on the time it takes to perform the i2c transfer vs. the >> > > > aux transfer. We assume the shortest possible length for the aux >> > > > transfer, and the longest possible (exluding clock stretching) for the >> > > > i2c transfer. >> > > > >> > > > The DP spec has some examples on how to calculate this, but we don't >> > > > calculate things quite the same way. The spec doesn't account for the >> > > > retry interval (assumes immediate retry on defer), and doesn't assume >> > > > the best/worst case behaviour as we do. >> > > > >> > > > Note that currently we assume 10 kHz speed for the i2c bus. Some real >> > > > world devices (eg. some Apple DP->VGA dongle) fails with less than 16 >> > > > retries. and that would correspond to something close to 15 kHz (with >> > > > our method of calculating things) But let's just go for 10 kHz to be >> > > > on the safe side. Ideally we should query/set the i2c bus speed via >> > > > DPCD but for now this should at leaast remove the regression from the >> > > > 1->16 byte trasnfer size change. And of course if the sink completes >> > > > the transfer quicker this shouldn't slow things down since we don't >> > > > change the interval between retries. >> > > > >> > > > I did a few experiments with a DP->DVI dongle I have that allows you >> > > > to change the i2c bus speed. Here are the results of me changing the >> > > > actual bus speed and the assumed bus speed and seeing when we start >> > > > to fail the operation: >> > > > >> > > > actual i2c khz assumed i2c khz max retries >> > > > 1 1 ok -> 2 fail 211 ok -> 106 fail >> > > > 5 8 ok -> 9 fail 27 ok -> 24 fail >> > > > 10 17 ok -> 18 fail 13 ok -> 12 fail >> > > > 100 210 ok -> 211 fail 2 ok -> 1 fail >> > > > >> > > > So based on that we have a fairly decent safety margin baked into >> > > > the formula to calculate the max number of retries. >> > > > >> > > > Fixes a regression with some DP dongles from: >> > > > commit 1d002fa720738bcd0bddb9178e9ea0773288e1dd >> > > > Author: Simon Farnsworth <simon.farnsworth@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > > > Date: Tue Feb 10 18:38:08 2015 +0000 >> > > > >> > > > drm/dp: Use large transactions for I2C over AUX >> > > > >> > > > v2: Use best case for AUX and worst case for i2c (Simon Farnsworth) >> > > > Add a define our AUX retry interval and account for it >> > > > >> > > > Cc: Simon Farnsworth <simon.farnsworth@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > > > Cc: moosotc@xxxxxxxxx >> > > > Tested-by: moosotc@xxxxxxxxx >> > > > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=91451 >> > > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > > > --- >> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c | 81 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- >> > > > 1 file changed, 79 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> > > > >> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c >> > > > index 7069e54..23b9fcc 100644 >> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c >> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c >> > > > @@ -424,6 +424,78 @@ static u32 drm_dp_i2c_functionality(struct i2c_adapter *adapter) >> > > > I2C_FUNC_10BIT_ADDR; >> > > > } >> > > > >> > > > +#define AUX_PRECHARGE_LEN 10 /* 10 to 16 */ >> > > > +#define AUX_SYNC_LEN (16 + 4) /* preamble + AUX_SYNC_END */ >> > > > +#define AUX_STOP_LEN 4 >> > > > +#define AUX_CMD_LEN 4 >> > > > +#define AUX_ADDRESS_LEN 20 >> > > > +#define AUX_REPLY_PAD_LEN 4 >> > > > +#define AUX_LENGTH_LEN 8 >> > > > + >> > > > +/* >> > > > + * Calculate the length of the AUX request/reply. Gives the "best" >> > > > + * case estimate, ie. successful while as short as possible. >> > > > + */ >> > > > +static int drm_dp_aux_req_len(const struct drm_dp_aux_msg *msg) >> > > > +{ >> > > > + int len = AUX_PRECHARGE_LEN + AUX_SYNC_LEN + AUX_STOP_LEN + >> > > > + AUX_CMD_LEN + AUX_ADDRESS_LEN + AUX_LENGTH_LEN; >> > > > + >> > > > + if ((msg->request & DP_AUX_I2C_READ) == 0) >> > > > + len += msg->size * 8; >> > > > + >> > > > + return len; >> > > > +} >> > > > + >> > > > +static int drm_dp_aux_reply_len(const struct drm_dp_aux_msg *msg) >> > > > +{ >> > > > + int len = AUX_PRECHARGE_LEN + AUX_SYNC_LEN + AUX_STOP_LEN + >> > > > + AUX_CMD_LEN + AUX_REPLY_PAD_LEN; >> > > > + >> > > > + /* >> > > > + * For read we expect what was asked. For writes there will >> > > > + * be 0 or 1 data bytes. Assume 0 for the "best" case. >> > > > + */ >> > > > + if (msg->request & DP_AUX_I2C_READ) >> > > > + len += msg->size * 8; >> > > > + >> > > > + return len; >> > > > +} >> > > > + >> > > > +#define I2C_START_LEN 1 >> > > > +#define I2C_STOP_LEN 1 >> > > > +#define I2C_ADDR_LEN 9 /* ADDRESS + R/W + ACK/NACK */ >> > > > +#define I2C_DATA_LEN 9 /* DATA + ACK/NACK */ >> > > > + >> > > > +/* >> > > > + * Calculate the length of the i2c transfer (in AUX clocks) >> > > > + * assuming the i2c bus speed is as specified. Gives the the >> > > > + * "worst" case estimate, ie. successful while as long as possible. >> > > > + * Doesn't account the the "MOT" bit, and instead assumes each >> > > > + * message includes a START, ADDRESS and STOP. Neither does it >> > > > + * account for additional random variables such as clock stretching. >> > > > + */ >> > > > +static int drm_dp_i2c_msg_len(const struct drm_dp_aux_msg *msg, >> > > > + int i2c_speed_khz) >> > > > +{ >> > > > + return (I2C_START_LEN + I2C_ADDR_LEN + msg->size * I2C_DATA_LEN + >> > > > + I2C_STOP_LEN) * 1000 / i2c_speed_khz; >> > > >> > > This doesn't seem to compute the lenght, but the time a transfer takes, in >> > > usec (if I haven't screwed up my numbers ...). Also DIV_ROUND_DOWN to make >> > > the defensiveness clear? >> > >> > Well it started out as length, and then I figured I'll just shove the >> > i2c->aux unit conversion in here. It's a length in time if you will ;) >> > >> > And it should rather be DIV_ROUND_UP() since we want the "maximum" here. >> >> Hm right, mixed that up. >> >> > > > +} >> > > > + >> > > > +/* >> > > > + * Deterine how many retries should be attempted to successfully transfer >> > > >> > > Deteri_m_e. >> > > >> > > > + * the specified message, based on the estimated durations of the >> > > > + * i2c and AUX transfers. >> > > > + */ >> > > > +static int drm_dp_i2c_retry_count(const struct drm_dp_aux_msg *msg, >> > > > + int i2c_speed_khz) >> > > > +{ >> > > > + int aux_len = drm_dp_aux_req_len(msg) + drm_dp_aux_reply_len(msg); >> > > > + int i2c_len = drm_dp_i2c_msg_len(msg, i2c_speed_khz); >> > > > + >> > > > + return DIV_ROUND_UP(i2c_len, aux_len + AUX_RETRY_INTERVAL); >> > > >> > > So assuming I get things right i2c_len is actually i2c_time_us, but >> > > aux_len is still just a length (and since the bus runs at 2MHz it doesn't >> > > seem to just add up correctly). >> > >> > AUX bitrate is 1MHz >> >> Right I remembered only that we need to put in the clock divider for 2MHz >> for intel dp aux transfers and got confused by that hw requirement. >> >> Still a comment that the aux clock is 1MHz plus renaming aux_len to >> aux_time_usecs would be great for clarity. > > Forgot to add: Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> for the > entire series if you rename the functions/variables where approriate to > make it clear that you compute usecs and add a comment about the 1MHz aux > clock as reminder for people like me here in this patch. The series pushed to topic/drm-fixes, thanks for the patches and review. BR, Jani. > -Daniel > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > http://blog.ffwll.ch > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
