On Tue, 04 Apr 2017, Ander Conselvan De Oliveira <conselvan2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 11:15 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> From: Madhav Chauhan <madhav.chauhan@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> As per BSPEC, valid cdclk values for glk are 79.2, 158.4, 316.8 Mhz.
>> Practically we can achive only 99% of these cdclk values (HW team
>> checking on this). So cdclk should be calculated for the given pixclk as
>> per that otherwise it may lead to screen corruption for some scenarios.
>>
>> v2: Rebased to new CDLCK code framework
>> v3: Addressed review comments from Ander/Jani
>> - Add comment in code about 99% usage of CDCLK
>> - Calculate max dot clock as well with 99% limit
>> v4 by Jani:
>> - drop superfluous whitespace change
>> - rewrite code comments to clarify
>>
>> Cc: Ander Conselvan de Oliveira <ander.conselvan.de.oliveira@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Madhav Chauhan <madhav.chauhan@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_cdclk.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_cdclk.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_cdclk.c
>> index dd3ad52b7dfe..763010f8ad89 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_cdclk.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_cdclk.c
>> @@ -1071,9 +1071,15 @@ static int bxt_calc_cdclk(int max_pixclk)
>>
>> static int glk_calc_cdclk(int max_pixclk)
>> {
>> - if (max_pixclk > 2 * 158400)
>> + /*
>> + * FIXME: Avoid using a pixel clock that is more than 99% of the cdclk
>> + * as a temporary workaround. Use a higher cdclk instead. (Note that
>
> Temporary workaround for what? Neither the comment nor the commit message
> explicitly lists the scenario that triggers this issue.
Frankly I did not know what to write. There are issues with pixel clocks
near cdclk that shouldn't happen. People are looking into this, but in
the mean time dodge the issues by using higher cdclk. The issue should
not be encoder specific, but in practice this has only been seen with
DSI because there were some modes with pixel clocks that are near the
cdclk.
BR,
Jani.
>
> With that fixed,
>
> Reviewed-by: Ander Conselvan de Oliveira <conselvan2@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>> + * intel_compute_max_dotclk() limits the max pixel clock to 99% of max
>> + * cdclk.)
>> + */
>> + if (max_pixclk > DIV_ROUND_UP(2 * 158400 * 99, 100))
>> return 316800;
>> - else if (max_pixclk > 2 * 79200)
>> + else if (max_pixclk > DIV_ROUND_UP(2 * 79200 * 99, 100))
>> return 158400;
>> else
>> return 79200;
>> @@ -1664,7 +1670,11 @@ static int intel_compute_max_dotclk(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>> int max_cdclk_freq = dev_priv->max_cdclk_freq;
>>
>> if (IS_GEMINILAKE(dev_priv))
>> - return 2 * max_cdclk_freq;
>> + /*
>> + * FIXME: Limiting to 99% as a temporary workaround. See
>> + * glk_calc_cdclk() for details.
>> + */
>> + return 2 * max_cdclk_freq * 99 / 100;
>> else if (INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->gen >= 9 ||
>> IS_HASWELL(dev_priv) || IS_BROADWELL(dev_priv))
>> return max_cdclk_freq;
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
