On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 09:52:05PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2017, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 09:44:19PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >> There is some conflation related to sink rates, making this change more
> >> complicated than it would otherwise have to be. There are three changes
> >> here that are rather difficult to split up:
> >>
> >> 1) Use the intel_dp->sink_rates array for all DP, not just eDP 1.4. We
> >> initialize it from DPCD on eDP 1.4 like before, but generate it based
> >> on DP_MAX_LINK_RATE on others. This reduces code complexity when we
> >> need to use the sink rates; they are all always in the sink_rates
> >> array.
> >>
> >> 2) Update the sink rate array whenever we read DPCD, and use the
> >> information from there. This increases code readability when we need
> >> the sink rates.
> >>
> >> 3) Disentangle fallback rate limiting from sink rates. In the code, the
> >> max rate is a dynamic property of the *link*, not of the *sink*. Do
> >> the limiting after intersecting the source and sink rates, which are
> >> static properties of the devices.
> >>
> >> This paves the way for follow-up refactoring that I've refrained from
> >> doing here to keep this change as simple as it possibly can.
> >>
> >> Cc: Manasi Navare <manasi.d.navare@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 76 ++++++++++++++++++---------
> >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp_link_training.c | 3 +-
> >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h | 4 +-
> >> 3 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> >> index cc2523363c8d..d13ce6746542 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> >> @@ -133,6 +133,34 @@ static void vlv_steal_power_sequencer(struct drm_device *dev,
> >> enum pipe pipe);
> >> static void intel_dp_unset_edid(struct intel_dp *intel_dp);
> >>
> >> +static int intel_dp_num_rates(u8 link_bw_code)
> >> +{
> >> + switch (link_bw_code) {
> >> + default:
> >> + WARN(1, "invalid max DP link bw val %x, using 1.62Gbps\n",
> >> + link_bw_code);
> >> + case DP_LINK_BW_1_62:
> >> + return 1;
> >> + case DP_LINK_BW_2_7:
> >> + return 2;
> >> + case DP_LINK_BW_5_4:
> >> + return 3;
> >> + }
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +/* update sink rates from dpcd */
> >> +static void intel_dp_set_sink_rates(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> >> +{
> >> + int i, num_rates;
> >> +
> >> + num_rates = intel_dp_num_rates(intel_dp->dpcd[DP_MAX_LINK_RATE]);
> >> +
> >> + for (i = 0; i < num_rates; i++)
> >> + intel_dp->sink_rates[i] = default_rates[i];
> >> +
> >> + intel_dp->num_sink_rates = num_rates;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> static int
> >> intel_dp_max_link_bw(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> >> {
> >> @@ -205,19 +233,6 @@ intel_dp_downstream_max_dotclock(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> >> return max_dotclk;
> >> }
> >>
> >> -static int
> >> -intel_dp_sink_rates(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, const int **sink_rates)
> >> -{
> >> - if (intel_dp->num_sink_rates) {
> >> - *sink_rates = intel_dp->sink_rates;
> >> - return intel_dp->num_sink_rates;
> >> - }
> >> -
> >> - *sink_rates = default_rates;
> >> -
> >> - return (intel_dp->max_sink_link_bw >> 3) + 1;
> >> -}
> >> -
> >> static void
> >> intel_dp_set_source_rates(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> >> {
> >> @@ -285,15 +300,22 @@ static int intel_dp_find_rate(const int *rates, int len, int rate)
> >> static int intel_dp_common_rates(struct intel_dp *intel_dp,
> >> int *common_rates)
> >> {
> >> - const int *sink_rates;
> >> - int sink_len;
> >> + int max_rate = drm_dp_bw_code_to_link_rate(intel_dp->max_sink_link_bw);
> >> + int i, common_len;
> >>
> >> - sink_len = intel_dp_sink_rates(intel_dp, &sink_rates);
> >> + common_len = intersect_rates(intel_dp->source_rates,
> >> + intel_dp->num_source_rates,
> >> + intel_dp->sink_rates,
> >> + intel_dp->num_sink_rates,
> >> + common_rates);
> >>
> >> - return intersect_rates(intel_dp->source_rates,
> >> - intel_dp->num_source_rates,
> >> - sink_rates, sink_len,
> >> - common_rates);
> >> + /* Limit results by potentially reduced max rate */
> >> + for (i = 0; i < common_len; i++) {
> >> + if (common_rates[common_len - i - 1] <= max_rate)
> >> + return common_len - i;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + return 0;
> >> }
> >>
> >> static int intel_dp_link_rate_index(struct intel_dp *intel_dp,
> >> @@ -1501,8 +1523,7 @@ static void snprintf_int_array(char *str, size_t len,
> >>
> >> static void intel_dp_print_rates(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> >> {
> >> - const int *sink_rates;
> >> - int sink_len, common_len;
> >> + int common_len;
> >> int common_rates[DP_MAX_SUPPORTED_RATES];
> >> char str[128]; /* FIXME: too big for stack? */
> >>
> >> @@ -1513,8 +1534,8 @@ static void intel_dp_print_rates(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> >> intel_dp->source_rates, intel_dp->num_source_rates);
> >> DRM_DEBUG_KMS("source rates: %s\n", str);
> >>
> >> - sink_len = intel_dp_sink_rates(intel_dp, &sink_rates);
> >> - snprintf_int_array(str, sizeof(str), sink_rates, sink_len);
> >> + snprintf_int_array(str, sizeof(str),
> >> + intel_dp->sink_rates, intel_dp->num_sink_rates);
> >> DRM_DEBUG_KMS("sink rates: %s\n", str);
> >>
> >> common_len = intel_dp_common_rates(intel_dp, common_rates);
> >> @@ -1580,7 +1601,8 @@ int intel_dp_rate_select(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, int rate)
> >> void intel_dp_compute_rate(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, int port_clock,
> >> uint8_t *link_bw, uint8_t *rate_select)
> >> {
> >> - if (intel_dp->num_sink_rates) {
> >> + /* eDP 1.4 rate select method. */
> >> + if (is_edp(intel_dp) && intel_dp->edp_dpcd[0] >= 0x03) {
> >
> > I was convinced that this wasn't a mandatory feature, but the spec does
> > seem to say "The table must contain at least one non-zero value at the
> > first (lowest DPCD address) location."
> >
> > But given historical evidence I'm still 99% convinced we'll eventually
> > run into some panel somewhere that does this wrong, so I don't really
> > like this idea.
>
> Then I think this should be fixed in intel_edp_init_dpcd() by a)
> checking that there is at least one non-zero value, falling back to
> intel_dp_set_source_rates() if not, and b) setting a new
> intel_dp->use_rate_selet field at that time, which will be used instead
> of (is_edp(intel_dp) && intel_dp->edp_dpcd[0] >= 0x03). Sound good?
Yep. That should preserve the current behaviour.
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
