On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 04:24:35PM -0800, Pandiyan, Dhinakaran wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 15:26 -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > WA 0884:bxt:all,cnl:*:A - "When FBC is enabled with eDP PSR,
> > the CPU host modify writes may not get updated on the Display
> > as expected.
> > WA: Write 0x00000000 to CUR_SURFLIVE_A with every CPU
> > host modify write to trigger PSR exit."
> >
> > We can also find on spec other cases where they describe
> > bogus writes to cursor registers to force PSR exit with
> > HW tracking. And it was confirmed by HW engineers that
> > this Wa can be safely applied for any frontbuffer activity.
> >
>
> So the idea is to do a dummy MMIO write to trigger PSR exit.
yeap. But not good for PSR2 though :(
We would need something else...
any idea?
So I will hold the v2 for now...
>
> > So let's use this more and more here instead of forcibly
> > disable and re-enable PSR everytime that we have a simple
> > reliable flush case.
> >
> > Other commits improve the fbcon/fbdev use a lot, but this
> > approach is the only when where we can get a fully reliable
> > console with no slowness or missed frames and PSR still
> > enabled and active.
> >
> > Cc: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h | 3 +++
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c | 15 +++++++++++++--
> > 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
> > index f6afa5e5e7c1..ac09d17cd835 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
> > @@ -6007,6 +6007,9 @@ enum {
> > #define IVB_CURSOR_B_OFFSET 0x71080
> > #define IVB_CURSOR_C_OFFSET 0x72080
> >
> > +#define _CUR_SURLIVE 0x700AC
> > +#define CUR_SURLIVE(pipe) _CURSOR2(pipe, _CUR_SURLIVE)
>
> Register address is correct.
> This is a *status* register that provides current surface base address.
> We aren't reading this register anywhere, so writing to it should be
> fine.
>
> > +
> > /* Display A control */
> > #define _DSPACNTR 0x70180
> > #define DISPLAY_PLANE_ENABLE (1<<31)
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > index 13409c6301e8..49554036ffb8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > @@ -946,8 +946,19 @@ void intel_psr_flush(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > dev_priv->psr.busy_frontbuffer_bits &= ~frontbuffer_bits;
> >
> > /* By definition flush = invalidate + flush */
> > - if (frontbuffer_bits)
> > - intel_psr_exit(dev_priv);
> > + if (frontbuffer_bits) {
> > + if (IS_VALLEYVIEW(dev_priv) || IS_CHERRYVIEW(dev_priv)) {
> > + intel_psr_exit(dev_priv);
> > + } else {
> > + /*
> > + * Display WA #0884: all
> > + * This documented WA for bxt can be safely applied
> > + * broadly so we can force HW tracking to exit PSR
> > + * instead of disabling and re-enabling.
> > + */
> > + I915_WRITE(CUR_SURLIVE(pipe), 0);
>
> The workaround asks 0 to be written to CUR_SURFLIVE_A. But I think
> writing to the active pipe register makes sense.Can you add that to the
> comment since the patch deviates from the workaround?
yeap, worth a comment...
>
>
> > + }
> > + }
> >
> > if (!dev_priv->psr.active && !dev_priv->psr.busy_frontbuffer_bits) {
> > if (IS_VALLEYVIEW(dev_priv) || IS_CHERRYVIEW(dev_priv))
>
>
> There is a psr_activate that follows, you should remove that too. HW
> should be able to activate PSR by itself.
agreed
>
>
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
