cool, with
v2 of patch 1
v2 of patch 2
patch 3
display works properly here on cnl.
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 6:02 AM, <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Follow the GLK path when computing cdclk and related limits. CNL
> pipes also produce two pixels per clock, so that's what we should
> really use. However for the purposes of pixel rate calculations we
> will assume one pixel per clock to keep the voltage higher, at least
> until the missing voltage scaling for DDI clocks is implemented.
>
> For the HBR2 vs. audio issue the limit should more correctly be 336
> MHz, but the GLK limit of 316.8 MHz works just as well and results
> in picking at least 336 MHz. Also toss in some related w/a numbers.
>
> v2: Assume 1 pixel per clock for the purposes of max pixel rate
> calculation until DDI clock voltage scaling is handled
>
> Cc: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_cdclk.c | 20 ++++++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_cdclk.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_cdclk.c
> index 1241e5891b29..4b8eb6a7d852 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_cdclk.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_cdclk.c
> @@ -1752,12 +1752,13 @@ static int bdw_adjust_min_pipe_pixel_rate(struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state,
> crtc_state->has_audio &&
> crtc_state->port_clock >= 540000 &&
> crtc_state->lane_count == 4) {
> - if (IS_CANNONLAKE(dev_priv))
> - pixel_rate = max(316800, pixel_rate);
> - else if (IS_GEMINILAKE(dev_priv))
> + if (IS_CANNONLAKE(dev_priv) || IS_GEMINILAKE(dev_priv)) {
> + /* Display WA #1145: glk,cnl */
> pixel_rate = max(2 * 316800, pixel_rate);
> - else
> + } else if (IS_GEN9(dev_priv) || IS_BROADWELL(dev_priv)) {
> + /* Display WA #1144: skl,bxt */
> pixel_rate = max(432000, pixel_rate);
> + }
> }
>
> /* According to BSpec, "The CD clock frequency must be at least twice
> @@ -1766,7 +1767,7 @@ static int bdw_adjust_min_pipe_pixel_rate(struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state,
> * two pixels per clock.
> */
> if (crtc_state->has_audio && INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 9) {
> - if (IS_GEMINILAKE(dev_priv))
> + if (IS_CANNONLAKE(dev_priv) || IS_GEMINILAKE(dev_priv))
> pixel_rate = max(2 * 2 * 96000, pixel_rate);
> else
> pixel_rate = max(2 * 96000, pixel_rate);
> @@ -1999,7 +2000,14 @@ 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))
> + if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 10)
> + /*
> + * FIXME: Allow '2 * max_cdclk_freq'
> + * once DDI clock voltage requirements are
> + * handled correctly.
> + */
> + return max_cdclk_freq;
> + else if (IS_GEMINILAKE(dev_priv))
> /*
> * FIXME: Limiting to 99% as a temporary workaround. See
> * glk_calc_cdclk() for details.
Are you sure we don't want this workaround also? With so similar
display engines I wonder if we would end with similar issues.
But I'm just asking... because honestly I didn't check that 99%
workaround closely enough yet...
The rest of the patch makes sense for me and works so feel free to use:
Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx>
rv-b only for this test for now, but tested-by you could use in all 3
patches mentioned above...
> --
> 2.13.0
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
--
Rodrigo Vivi
Blog: http://blog.vivi.eng.br
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
