On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 07:44:08PM +0530, Mahesh Kumar wrote:
> Memory with 16GB dimms require an increase of 1us in level-0 latency.
> This patch implements the same.
> Bspec: 4381
>
> changes since V1:
> - s/memdev_info/dram_info
> - make skl_is_16gb_dimm pure function
>
> Signed-off-by: Mahesh Kumar <mahesh1.kumar@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 3 +++
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 13 +++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
> index ddf6bf9b500a..86bc2e685522 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
> @@ -1070,6 +1070,25 @@ static void intel_sanitize_options(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> intel_gvt_sanitize_options(dev_priv);
> }
>
> +static bool
> +skl_is_16gb_dimm(u8 rank, u8 size, u8 width)
> +{
> + if (size == 16 && width == SKL_DRAM_WIDTH_X8 &&
> + rank == SKL_DRAM_RANK_SINGLE)
> + return true;
> + else if (size == 32 && width == SKL_DRAM_WIDTH_X8 &&
> + rank == SKL_DRAM_RANK_DUAL)
> + return true;
> + else if (size == 8 && width == SKL_DRAM_WIDTH_X16 &&
> + rank == SKL_DRAM_RANK_SINGLE)
> + return true;
> + else if (size == 16 && width == SKL_DRAM_WIDTH_X16 &&
> + rank == SKL_DRAM_RANK_DUAL)
> + return true;
nip: This is right, but it would be easier if order of checks
were in same order as spec. Well.. but no real need for
change since I already checked ;)
> +
> + return false;
> +}
> +
> static int
> skl_dram_get_channel_info(struct dram_channel_info *ch, u32 val)
> {
> @@ -1077,6 +1096,7 @@ skl_dram_get_channel_info(struct dram_channel_info *ch, u32 val)
> u8 l_size, s_size;
> u8 l_width, s_width;
> enum dram_rank rank;
> + bool l_16gb_dimm, s_16gb_dimm;
I don't think we need this extra locals
>
> if (!val)
> return -1;
> @@ -1103,6 +1123,13 @@ skl_dram_get_channel_info(struct dram_channel_info *ch, u32 val)
> else
> rank = I915_DRAM_RANK_SINGLE;
>
> + l_16gb_dimm = skl_is_16gb_dimm(l_rank, l_size, l_width);
> + s_16gb_dimm = skl_is_16gb_dimm(s_rank, s_size, s_width);
> +
> + if (l_16gb_dimm || s_16gb_dimm)
> + ch->is_16gb_dimm = true;
> + else
> + ch->is_16gb_dimm = false;
ch->is_16gb_dim = skl_is_16gb_dimm(l_rank, l_size, l_width) ||
skl_is_16gb_dimm(s_rank, s_size, s_width);
> ch->l_info.size = l_size;
> ch->s_info.size = s_size;
> ch->l_info.width = l_width;
> @@ -1137,6 +1164,8 @@ skl_dram_get_channels_info(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> + dram_info->valid_dimm = true;
> +
> /*
> * If any of the channel is single rank channel, worst case output
> * will be same as if single rank memory, so consider single rank
> @@ -1152,6 +1181,10 @@ skl_dram_get_channels_info(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> DRM_INFO("couldn't get memory rank information\n");
> return -EINVAL;
> }
> +
> + if (ch0.is_16gb_dimm || ch1.is_16gb_dimm)
> + dram_info->is_16gb_dimm = true;
> +
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -1263,6 +1296,7 @@ bxt_get_dram_info(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> + dram_info->valid_dimm = true;
> dram_info->valid = true;
> return 0;
> }
> @@ -1275,6 +1309,8 @@ intel_get_dram_info(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> int ret;
>
> dram_info->valid = false;
> + dram_info->valid_dimm = false;
> + dram_info->is_16gb_dimm = false;
> dram_info->rank = I915_DRAM_RANK_INVALID;
> dram_info->bandwidth_kbps = 0;
> dram_info->num_channels = 0;
> @@ -1298,9 +1334,9 @@ intel_get_dram_info(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> sprintf(bandwidth_str, "unknown");
> DRM_DEBUG_KMS("DRAM bandwidth:%s, total-channels: %u\n",
> bandwidth_str, dram_info->num_channels);
> - DRM_DEBUG_KMS("DRAM rank: %s rank\n",
> + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("DRAM rank: %s rank 16GB-dimm:%s\n",
> (dram_info->rank == I915_DRAM_RANK_DUAL) ?
> - "dual" : "single");
> + "dual" : "single", yesno(dram_info->is_16gb_dimm));
> }
>
> /**
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> index 2d12fc152b49..854f3c828e01 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> @@ -1906,6 +1906,8 @@ struct drm_i915_private {
>
> struct dram_info {
> bool valid;
> + bool valid_dimm;
> + bool is_16gb_dimm;
> u8 num_channels;
> enum dram_rank {
> I915_DRAM_RANK_INVALID = 0,
> @@ -2133,6 +2135,7 @@ struct dram_channel_info {
> u8 size, width, rank;
> } l_info, s_info;
> enum dram_rank rank;
> + bool is_16gb_dimm;
> };
>
> static inline struct drm_i915_private *to_i915(const struct drm_device *dev)
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> index 7312ecb73415..2446f53adf21 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> @@ -2874,6 +2874,19 @@ static void intel_read_wm_latency(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> }
> }
>
> + /*
> + * WA Level-0 adjustment for 16GB DIMMs: SKL+
> + * If we could not get dimm info enable this WA to prevent from
> + * any underrun. If not able to get Dimm info assume 16GB dimm
> + * to avoid any underrun.
> + */
> + if (dev_priv->dram_info.valid_dimm) {
> + if (dev_priv->dram_info.is_16gb_dimm)
> + wm[0] += 1;
> + } else {
> + wm[0] += 1;
well... spec don't cover this case... I believe it is safe,
but only concern would be this creating latency for other cases...
just thinking loud, but I'm probably in favor of doing this anyway...
> + }
> +
> } else if (IS_HASWELL(dev_priv) || IS_BROADWELL(dev_priv)) {
> uint64_t sskpd = I915_READ64(MCH_SSKPD);
>
> --
> 2.16.2
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
