On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 03:24:26PM -0700, James Ausmus wrote:
In prep for newer platforms having more complicated ways to determine
the SAGV block time, move the variable to dev_priv, and extract the
setting to an initial setup function. While we're at it, update the if
ladder to follow the new gen -> old gen order preference, and warn on
any non-specified gen.
v2: Shorten the function name (Ville), return directly (Ville), move
sagv_block_time_us value to dev_priv (Ville)
Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Stanislav Lisovskiy <stanislav.lisovskiy@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: James Ausmus <james.ausmus@xxxxxxxxx>
---
Ville - with the amount of v1..v2 change in this first patch, I wasn't
comfortable applying your R-b, could you take another look? Patch 2 just
has the trivial changes you suggested, so I kept that one.
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 2 ++
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
index 337d8306416a..87a835a0210b 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
@@ -1579,6 +1579,8 @@ struct drm_i915_private {
I915_SAGV_NOT_CONTROLLED
} sagv_status;
+ int sagv_block_time_us;
+
struct {
/*
* Raw watermark latency values:
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
index bfcf03ab5245..b413a7f3bc5d 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
@@ -3642,6 +3642,26 @@ intel_has_sagv(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
dev_priv->sagv_status != I915_SAGV_NOT_CONTROLLED;
}
+static void
+skl_setup_sagv_block_time(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
+{
+ if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 11)) {
+ dev_priv->sagv_block_time_us = 10;
+ return;
+ } else if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 10)) {
+ dev_priv->sagv_block_time_us = 20;
+ return;
+ } else if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 9)) {
+ dev_priv->sagv_block_time_us = 30;
+ return;
+ } else {
+ MISSING_CASE(INTEL_GEN(dev_priv));
+ }
+
+ /* Default to an unusable block time */
+ dev_priv->sagv_block_time_us = 1000;
I would actually make sagv_block_time_us unsigned and assign -1 here.
But making it unsigned would mean cascade that down to the wm
calculations. Humn... Maybe there's a reason for that to be signed that
I'm not seeing.
+}
+
/*
* SAGV dynamically adjusts the system agent voltage and clock frequencies
* depending on power and performance requirements. The display engine access
@@ -3730,18 +3750,10 @@ bool intel_can_enable_sagv(struct intel_atomic_state *state)
struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state;
enum pipe pipe;
int level, latency;
- int sagv_block_time_us;
if (!intel_has_sagv(dev_priv))
return false;
- if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 9))
- sagv_block_time_us = 30;
- else if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 10))
- sagv_block_time_us = 20;
- else
- sagv_block_time_us = 10;
-
/*
* If there are no active CRTCs, no additional checks need be performed
*/
@@ -3788,7 +3800,7 @@ bool intel_can_enable_sagv(struct intel_atomic_state *state)
* incur memory latencies higher than sagv_block_time_us we
* can't enable SAGV.
*/
- if (latency < sagv_block_time_us)
+ if (latency < dev_priv->sagv_block_time_us)
return false;
}
@@ -9013,6 +9025,9 @@ void intel_init_pm(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
else if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 5))
i915_ironlake_get_mem_freq(dev_priv);
+ if (IS_GEN9_BC(dev_priv) || INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 10)
+ skl_setup_sagv_block_time(dev_priv);
Do we want to use intel_has_sagv() here?
+
/* For FIFO watermark updates */
if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 9) {
skl_setup_wm_latency(dev_priv);
--
2.22.1
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
