On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 02:15:26PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Thu, 27 Sep 2018, Manasi Navare <manasi.d.navare@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 12:53:21PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > >> We've opted to use the maximum link rate and lane count for eDP panels, > >> because typically the maximum supported configuration reported by the > >> panel has matched the native resolution requirements of the panel, and > >> optimizing the link has lead to problems. > >> > >> With eDP 1.4 rate select method and DSC features, this is decreasingly > >> the case. There's a need to optimize the link parameters. Moreover, > >> already eDP 1.3 states fast link with fewer lanes is preferred over the > >> wide and slow. (Wide and slow should still be more reliable for longer > >> cable lengths.) > >> > >> Additionally, there have been reports of panels failing on arbitrary > >> link configurations, although arguably all configurations they claim to > >> support should work. > >> > >> Optimize eDP 1.4+ link config fast and narrow. > >> > >> Side note: The implementation has a near duplicate of the link config > >> function, with just the two inner for loops turned inside out. Perhaps > >> there'd be a way to make this, say, more table driven to reduce the > >> duplication, but seems like that would lead to duplication in the table > >> generation. We'll also have to see how the link config optimization for > >> DSC turns out. > >> > >> Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: Manasi Navare <manasi.d.navare@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: Matt Atwood <matthew.s.atwood@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: "Lee, Shawn C" <shawn.c.lee@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Acked-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105267 > >> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Reviewed-by: Manasi Navare <manasi.d.navare@xxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> > >> v2 of http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20180509071321.28563-1-jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx > >> > >> Untested. It's possible this helps the referenced bug. The downside is > >> that this patch has a bunch of dependencies that are too much to > >> backport to stable kernels. If the patch works, we may need to consider > >> hacking together an uglier backport. > >> --- > >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 73 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- > >> 1 file changed, 62 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c > >> index 436c22de33b6..bf7b91832c8a 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c > >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c > >> @@ -1921,6 +1921,42 @@ intel_dp_compute_link_config_wide(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, > >> return false; > >> } > >> > >> +/* Optimize link config in order: max bpp, min lanes, min clock */ > >> +static bool > >> +intel_dp_compute_link_config_fast(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, > >> + struct intel_crtc_state *pipe_config, > >> + const struct link_config_limits *limits) > >> +{ > >> + struct drm_display_mode *adjusted_mode = &pipe_config->base.adjusted_mode; > >> + int bpp, clock, lane_count; > >> + int mode_rate, link_clock, link_avail; > >> + > >> + for (bpp = limits->max_bpp; bpp >= limits->min_bpp; bpp -= 2 * 3) { > >> + mode_rate = intel_dp_link_required(adjusted_mode->crtc_clock, > >> + bpp); > >> + > >> + for (lane_count = limits->min_lane_count; > >> + lane_count <= limits->max_lane_count; > >> + lane_count <<= 1) { > >> + for (clock = limits->min_clock; clock <= limits->max_clock; clock++) { > >> + link_clock = intel_dp->common_rates[clock]; > >> + link_avail = intel_dp_max_data_rate(link_clock, > >> + lane_count); > >> + > >> + if (mode_rate <= link_avail) { > >> + pipe_config->lane_count = lane_count; > >> + pipe_config->pipe_bpp = bpp; > >> + pipe_config->port_clock = link_clock; > >> + > >> + return true; > >> + } > >> + } > >> + } > >> + } > >> + > >> + return false; > >> +} > >> + > >> static bool > >> intel_dp_compute_link_config(struct intel_encoder *encoder, > >> struct intel_crtc_state *pipe_config) > >> @@ -1945,13 +1981,15 @@ intel_dp_compute_link_config(struct intel_encoder *encoder, > >> limits.min_bpp = 6 * 3; > >> limits.max_bpp = intel_dp_compute_bpp(intel_dp, pipe_config); > >> > >> - if (intel_dp_is_edp(intel_dp)) { > >> + if (intel_dp_is_edp(intel_dp) && intel_dp->edp_dpcd[0] < DP_EDP_14) { > >> /* > >> * Use the maximum clock and number of lanes the eDP panel > >> - * advertizes being capable of. The panels are generally > >> - * designed to support only a single clock and lane > >> - * configuration, and typically these values correspond to the > >> - * native resolution of the panel. > >> + * advertizes being capable of. The eDP 1.3 and earlier panels > >> + * are generally designed to support only a single clock and > >> + * lane configuration, and typically these values correspond to > >> + * the native resolution of the panel. With eDP 1.4 rate select > >> + * and DSC, this is decreasingly the case, and we need to be > >> + * able to select less than maximum link config. > >> */ > >> limits.min_lane_count = limits.max_lane_count; > >> limits.min_clock = limits.max_clock; > >> @@ -1965,12 +2003,25 @@ intel_dp_compute_link_config(struct intel_encoder *encoder, > >> intel_dp->common_rates[limits.max_clock], > >> limits.max_bpp, adjusted_mode->crtc_clock); > >> > >> - /* > >> - * Optimize for slow and wide. This is the place to add alternative > >> - * optimization policy. > >> - */ > >> - if (!intel_dp_compute_link_config_wide(intel_dp, pipe_config, &limits)) > >> - return false; > >> + if (intel_dp_is_edp(intel_dp)) { > > > > Nitpick below: > > Can we nest the edp_rev < DP_EDP_14 condition within this if condition? Like below: > > > > if (intel_dp->edp_dpcd[0] < DP_EDP_14) { > > limits.min_lane_count = limits.max_lane_count; > > limits.min_clock = limits.max_clock; > > } > > Doing that would require duplicating the debug logging to both branches > of the if (intel_dp_is_edp(intel_dp)) condition. > > BR, > Jani. > Ok yes makes sense, now its common to both eDP and DP cases. Manasi > > > > With that, > > > > Reviewed-by: Manasi Navare <manasi.d.navare@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Manasi > > > >> + /* > >> + * Optimize for fast and narrow. eDP 1.3 section 3.3 and eDP 1.4 > >> + * section A.1: "It is recommended that the minimum number of > >> + * lanes be used, using the minimum link rate allowed for that > >> + * lane configuration." > >> + * > >> + * Note that we use the max clock and lane count for eDP 1.3 and > >> + * earlier, and fast vs. wide is irrelevant. > >> + */ > >> + if (!intel_dp_compute_link_config_fast(intel_dp, pipe_config, > >> + &limits)) > >> + return false; > >> + } else { > >> + /* Optimize for slow and wide. */ > >> + if (!intel_dp_compute_link_config_wide(intel_dp, pipe_config, > >> + &limits)) > >> + return false; > >> + } > >> > >> DRM_DEBUG_KMS("DP lane count %d clock %d bpp %d\n", > >> pipe_config->lane_count, pipe_config->port_clock, > >> -- > >> 2.11.0 > >> > > -- > Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
