Em Sex, 2018-01-26 às 18:50 -0200, Paulo Zanoni escreveu:
> Em Ter, 2018-01-23 às 16:49 -0800, James Ausmus escreveu:
> > On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 05:05:23PM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> > > From: Mahesh Kumar <mahesh1.kumar@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > ICL has 2 slices of DBuf, enable both the slices during display
> > > init.
> > >
> > > Ideally we should only enable the second slice when needed in
> > > order
> > > to
> > > save power, but while we're not there yet, adopt the simpler
> > > solution
> > > to keep us bug-free.
> > >
> > > v2 (from Paulo):
> > > - Add the TODO comment.
> > > - Reorganize where things are defined.
> > > - Fix indentation.
> > > - Remove unnecessary POSTING_READ() calls.
> > > - Improve the commit message.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Mahesh Kumar <mahesh1.kumar@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h | 2 ++
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.c | 34
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > > 2 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
> > > index 979bc06a59f4..1746df9a263d 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
> > > @@ -7122,6 +7122,8 @@ enum {
> > > #define DISP_DATA_PARTITION_5_6 (1<<6)
> > > #define DISP_IPC_ENABLE (1<<3)
> > > #define DBUF_CTL _MMIO(0x45008)
> > > +#define DBUF_CTL_S1 _MMIO(0x45008)
> >
> > Since it's the exact same register, is it really worth duplicating,
> > or
> > should we just use the existing DBUF_CTL instead of adding
> > DBUF_CTL_S1?
>
> I like it: it's just a single extra line on i915_reg.h and adds
> clarity
> to the code that uses it. But I have nothing against removing it too.
>
>
> >
> >
> > > +#define DBUF_CTL_S2 _MMIO(0x44FE8)
> > > #define DBUF_POWER_REQUEST (1<<31)
> > > #define DBUF_POWER_STATE (1<<30)
> > > #define GEN7_MSG_CTL _MMIO(0x45010)
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.c
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.c
> > > index 2556db16c76a..7801a425398f 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.c
> > > @@ -2610,6 +2610,36 @@ static void gen9_dbuf_disable(struct
> > > drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > > DRM_ERROR("DBuf power disable timeout!\n");
> > > }
> > >
> > > +/*
> > > + * TODO: we shouldn't always enable DBUF_CTL_S2, we should only
> > > enable it when
> > > + * needed and keep it disabled as much as possible.
> > > + */
> > > +static void icl_dbuf_enable(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > > +{
> > > + I915_WRITE(DBUF_CTL_S1, I915_READ(DBUF_CTL_S1) |
> > > DBUF_POWER_REQUEST);
> > > + I915_WRITE(DBUF_CTL_S2, I915_READ(DBUF_CTL_S2) |
> > > DBUF_POWER_REQUEST);
> > > + POSTING_READ(DBUF_CTL_S2);
> > > +
> > > + udelay(10);
> >
> > BSpec says to poll, and timeout/fail after 10 uS, rather than
> > unconditionally busy wait - worth making more complex to
> > potentially
> > save a few uS of busy wait?
>
> Yeah, good points. We have intel_wait_for_register() to help avoid
> the
> complexity here.
Oops, I realized this is just 10us. Our wait macros aren't helpful
here, the sleep is too small.
Also, these functions are modeled after skl_dbuf_{dis,en}enable, which
uses udelay too. We probably want to keep the same coding style for the
gen9 and the icl one.
So I think the best course is to keep the udelay, and if we come up
with a better solution we apply to the skl functions too.
With all that said, I guess my r-b patch on the patch stands.
>
>
> >
> > > +
> > > + if (!(I915_READ(DBUF_CTL_S1) & DBUF_POWER_STATE) ||
> > > + !(I915_READ(DBUF_CTL_S2) & DBUF_POWER_STATE))
> > > + DRM_ERROR("DBuf power enable timeout\n");
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static void icl_dbuf_disable(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > > +{
> > > + I915_WRITE(DBUF_CTL_S1, I915_READ(DBUF_CTL_S1) &
> > > ~DBUF_POWER_REQUEST);
> > > + I915_WRITE(DBUF_CTL_S2, I915_READ(DBUF_CTL_S2) &
> > > ~DBUF_POWER_REQUEST);
> > > + POSTING_READ(DBUF_CTL_S2);
> > > +
> > > + udelay(10);
> > > +
> > > + if ((I915_READ(DBUF_CTL_S1) & DBUF_POWER_STATE) ||
> > > + (I915_READ(DBUF_CTL_S2) & DBUF_POWER_STATE))
> > > + DRM_ERROR("DBuf power disable timeout!\n");
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > static void skl_display_core_init(struct drm_i915_private
> > > *dev_priv,
> > > bool resume)
> > > {
> > > @@ -2920,7 +2950,7 @@ static void icl_display_core_init(struct
> > > drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > > icl_init_cdclk(dev_priv);
> > >
> > > /* 6. Enable DBUF. */
> > > - gen9_dbuf_enable(dev_priv);
> > > + icl_dbuf_enable(dev_priv);
> > >
> > > /* 7. Setup MBUS. */
> > > /* FIXME: MBUS code not here yet. */
> > > @@ -2940,7 +2970,7 @@ static void icl_display_core_uninit(struct
> > > drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > > /* 1. Disable all display engine functions -> aready
> > > done
> > > */
> > >
> > > /* 2. Disable DBUF */
> > > - gen9_dbuf_disable(dev_priv);
> > > + icl_dbuf_disable(dev_priv);
> > >
> > > /* 3. Disable CD clock */
> > > icl_uninit_cdclk(dev_priv);
> > > --
> > > 2.14.3
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Intel-gfx mailing list
> > > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
