On Fri, 2019-11-15 at 22:19 +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 02:24:49PM +0200, Stanislav Lisovskiy wrote:
> > Also implemented algorithm for choosing DBuf slice configuration
> > based on active pipes, pipe ratio as stated in BSpec 12716.
> >
> > Now pipe allocation still stays proportional to pipe width as
> > before,
> > however within allowed DBuf slice for this particular
> > configuration.
> >
> > v2: Remove unneeded check from commit as ddb enabled slices might
> > now differ from hw state.
> >
> > v3: - Added new field "supported_slices" to ddb to separate max
> > supported slices vs currently enabled, to avoid confusion.
> > - Removed obsolete comments and code related to DBuf(Matthew
> > Roper).
> > - Some code style and long line removal(Matthew Roper).
> > - Added WARN_ON to new ddb range offset calc function(Matthew
> > Roper).
> > - Removed platform specific call to calc pipe ratio from ddb
> > allocation function and fixed the return value(Matthew Roper)
> > - Refactored DBUF slice allocation table to improve readability
> > - Added DBUF slice allocation for TGL as well.
> > - ICL(however not TGL) seems to voluntarily enable second DBuf
> > slice
> > after pm suspend/resume causing a mismatch failure, because
> > we
> > update DBuf slices only if we do a modeset, however this
> > check
> > is done always. Fixed it to be done only when modeset for
> > ICL.
> >
> > v4: - Now enabled slices is not actually a number, but a bitmask,
> > because we might need to enable second slice only and number
> > of slices would still 1 and that current code doesn't allow.
> > - Remove redundant duplicate code to have some unified way of
> > enabling dbuf slices instead of hardcoding.
> >
> > v5: - Fix failing gen9_assert_dbuf_enabled as it was naively
> > thinking
> > that we have only one DBUF_CTL slice. Now another version for
> > gen11 will check both slices as only second one can be
> > enabled,
> > to keep CI happy.
> >
> > v6: - Removed enabled dbuf assertion completely. Previous code
> > was keeping dbuf enabled, even(!) when _dbuf_disable is
> > called.
> > Currently we enable/disable dbuf slices based on requrement
> > so no point in asserting this here.
> > - Removed unnecessary modeset check from
> > verify_wm_state(Matthew Roper)
> > - Slices intersection after union is same as final
> > result(Matthew Roper)
> > - Moved DBuf slices to intel_device_info(Matthew Roper)
> > - Some macros added(Matthew Roper)
> > - ddb range is now always less or equal to ddb size - no need
> > for additional
> > checks(previously needed as we had some bandwidth checks in
> > there which
> > could "suddenly" return ddb_size smaller than it is.
> >
> > v7: Minor costemic changes:
> > - Changed icl_dbuf_slices_restore name to
> > icl_program_dbuf_slices
> > as it more corresponds to the actual functionality.
> > - Some simplification with supported slices for BXT and GLK
> > - skl_pipe_downscale_amount -> icl_pipe_downscale_amount as
> > this is not used for skl anymore.
> > - Changed DBuf slice assignment order for TGL case
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Matthew Roper <matthew.d.roper@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Lisovskiy <stanislav.lisovskiy@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Matthew Roper <matthew.d.roper@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: James Ausmus <james.ausmus@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c | 26 +-
> > .../drm/i915/display/intel_display_power.c | 98 ++---
> > .../drm/i915/display/intel_display_power.h | 2 +
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 5 +
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 2 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c | 6 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h | 8 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.h | 1 +
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 387
> > ++++++++++++++++--
> > 9 files changed, 431 insertions(+), 104 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> > index 876fc25968bf..bd7aff675198 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> > @@ -13387,7 +13387,7 @@ static void verify_wm_state(struct
> > intel_crtc *crtc,
> >
> > if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 11 &&
> > hw->ddb.enabled_slices != sw_ddb->enabled_slices)
> > - DRM_ERROR("mismatch in DBUF Slices (expected %u, got
> > %u)\n",
> > + DRM_ERROR("mismatch in DBUF Slices (expected %x, got
> > %x)\n",
> > sw_ddb->enabled_slices,
> > hw->ddb.enabled_slices);
> >
> > @@ -14614,15 +14614,24 @@ static void
> > skl_commit_modeset_enables(struct intel_atomic_state *state)
> > u8 hw_enabled_slices = dev_priv->wm.skl_hw.ddb.enabled_slices;
> > u8 required_slices = state->wm_results.ddb.enabled_slices;
> > struct skl_ddb_entry entries[I915_MAX_PIPES] = {};
> > + u8 slices_union = hw_enabled_slices | required_slices;
> > + u8 slices_intersection = required_slices;
> >
> > for_each_oldnew_intel_crtc_in_state(state, crtc,
> > old_crtc_state, new_crtc_state, i)
> > /* ignore allocations for crtc's that have been turned
> > off. */
> > if (new_crtc_state->hw.active)
> > entries[i] = old_crtc_state->wm.skl.ddb;
> >
> > - /* If 2nd DBuf slice required, enable it here */
> > - if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 11 && required_slices >
> > hw_enabled_slices)
> > - icl_dbuf_slices_update(dev_priv, required_slices);
> > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("DBuf req slices %d hw slices %d\n",
> > + required_slices, hw_enabled_slices);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If some other DBuf slice required, enable it here,
> > + * as here we only add more slices, but not remove to prevent
> > + * issues if somebody still uses those.
> > + */
> > + if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 11 && required_slices !=
> > hw_enabled_slices)
> > + icl_dbuf_slices_update(dev_priv, slices_union);
> >
> > /*
> > * Whenever the number of active pipes changes, we need to make
> > sure we
> > @@ -14681,9 +14690,12 @@ static void
> > skl_commit_modeset_enables(struct intel_atomic_state *state)
> > }
> > } while (progress);
> >
> > - /* If 2nd DBuf slice is no more required disable it */
> > - if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 11 && required_slices <
> > hw_enabled_slices)
> > - icl_dbuf_slices_update(dev_priv, required_slices);
> > + /*
> > + * If some other DBuf slice is not needed, disable it here,
> > + * as here we only remove slices, which are not needed anymore.
> > + */
> > + if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 11 && required_slices !=
> > hw_enabled_slices)
> > + icl_dbuf_slices_update(dev_priv, slices_intersection);
>
> This is still a totally wrong place for this. We need to be sure the
> planes have switched over to the new ddb layout before we power off
> anything.
I have just modified already existing line here, not added by me.
The point of this patch is starting to use second DBuf slice but
not fixing all kinds of issues related to DBuf code at the same time.
Of course this is nice idea to fix it - if that is wrong plane,
but current code somehow lives with it and probably this should be
with some other patch.
>
> > }
> >
> > static void intel_atomic_helper_free_state(struct drm_i915_private
> > *dev_priv)
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_power.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_power.c
> > index ce1b64f4dd44..a78bc9b61862 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_power.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_power.c
> > @@ -1031,15 +1031,6 @@ static bool
> > gen9_dc_off_power_well_enabled(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > (I915_READ(DC_STATE_EN) &
> > DC_STATE_EN_UPTO_DC5_DC6_MASK) == 0);
> > }
> >
> > -static void gen9_assert_dbuf_enabled(struct drm_i915_private
> > *dev_priv)
> > -{
> > - u32 tmp = I915_READ(DBUF_CTL);
> > -
> > - WARN((tmp & (DBUF_POWER_STATE | DBUF_POWER_REQUEST)) !=
> > - (DBUF_POWER_STATE | DBUF_POWER_REQUEST),
> > - "Unexpected DBuf power power state (0x%08x)\n", tmp);
> > -}
> > -
> > static void gen9_disable_dc_states(struct drm_i915_private
> > *dev_priv)
> > {
> > struct intel_cdclk_state cdclk_state = {};
> > @@ -1055,8 +1046,6 @@ static void gen9_disable_dc_states(struct
> > drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > /* Can't read out voltage_level so can't use
> > intel_cdclk_changed() */
> > WARN_ON(intel_cdclk_needs_modeset(&dev_priv->cdclk.hw,
> > &cdclk_state));
> >
> > - gen9_assert_dbuf_enabled(dev_priv);
> > -
> > if (IS_GEN9_LP(dev_priv))
> > bxt_verify_ddi_phy_power_wells(dev_priv);
> >
> > @@ -4254,31 +4243,51 @@ static void gen9_dbuf_disable(struct
> > drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > intel_dbuf_slice_set(dev_priv, DBUF_CTL, false);
> > }
> >
> > -static u8 intel_dbuf_max_slices(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > +int intel_dbuf_max_slices(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > {
> > - if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) < 11)
> > - return 1;
> > - return 2;
> > + return INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->supported_slices;
> > +}
>
> Kinda pointless function now. 'supported_slices' is not a very good
> name. Should be 'num_dbuf_slices' or something along those lines.
Supported slices really means how much slices we support in hardware.
num_dbuf_slices will not reflect that, it will be more ambigious.
I don't like this name.
>
> > +
> > +void icl_program_dbuf_slices(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > +{
> > + const u8 hw_enabled_slices = dev_priv-
> > >wm.skl_hw.ddb.enabled_slices;
>
> Seems a rather pointless variable. const at least is pointless.
>
> > +
> > + icl_dbuf_slices_update(dev_priv, hw_enabled_slices);
> > }
> >
> > void icl_dbuf_slices_update(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > u8 req_slices)
> > {
> > - const u8 hw_enabled_slices = dev_priv-
> > >wm.skl_hw.ddb.enabled_slices;
> > - bool ret;
> > + bool ret = true;
> > + int i;
> > + int max_slices = intel_dbuf_max_slices(dev_priv);
> >
> > - if (req_slices > intel_dbuf_max_slices(dev_priv)) {
> > + if (hweight8(req_slices) > intel_dbuf_max_slices(dev_priv)) {
> > DRM_ERROR("Invalid number of dbuf slices requested\n");
> > return;
> > }
> >
> > - if (req_slices == hw_enabled_slices || req_slices == 0)
> > - return;
> > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Updating dbuf slices to %x\n", req_slices);
> >
> > - if (req_slices > hw_enabled_slices)
> > - ret = intel_dbuf_slice_set(dev_priv, DBUF_CTL_S2,
> > true);
> > - else
> > - ret = intel_dbuf_slice_set(dev_priv, DBUF_CTL_S2,
> > false);
> > + for (i = 0; i < max_slices; i++) {
> > + int slice_bit = BIT(i);
> > + bool slice_set = (slice_bit & req_slices) != 0;
> > +
> > + switch (slice_bit) {
> > + case DBUF_S1_BIT:
> > + ret = ret && intel_dbuf_slice_set(dev_priv,
> > + DBUF_CTL_S1,
> > + slice_set);
> > + break;
> > + case DBUF_S2_BIT:
> > + ret = ret && intel_dbuf_slice_set(dev_priv,
> > + DBUF_CTL_S2,
> > + slice_set);
>
> The return value on intel_dbuf_slice_set() seems pointless. I'd nuke
> it.
>
> Also as long you have intel_dbuf_slice_set() I'd probably just pass
> the
> slice index there and let it deal with the register details. DBUF_CTL
> should probably be parametrized as well so you don't need annoying
> switch
> statements.
What if it fails? Shouldn't we still have some clue what state do we
have/had at the moment?
>
> > + break;
> > + default:
> > + MISSING_CASE(slice_bit);
> > + }
> > + }
> >
> > if (ret)
> > dev_priv->wm.skl_hw.ddb.enabled_slices = req_slices;
> > @@ -4286,40 +4295,21 @@ void icl_dbuf_slices_update(struct
> > drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> >
> > 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);
> > -
> > - if (!(I915_READ(DBUF_CTL_S1) & DBUF_POWER_STATE) ||
> > - !(I915_READ(DBUF_CTL_S2) & DBUF_POWER_STATE))
> > - DRM_ERROR("DBuf power enable timeout\n");
> > - else
> > - /*
> > - * FIXME: for now pretend that we only have 1 slice,
> > see
> > - * intel_enabled_dbuf_slices_num().
> > - */
> > - dev_priv->wm.skl_hw.ddb.enabled_slices = 1;
> > + /*
> > + * Just power up 1 slice, we will
> > + * figure out later which slices we have and what we need.
> > + */
> > + dev_priv->wm.skl_hw.ddb.enabled_slices = DBUF_S1_BIT;
>
> That stuff really shouldn't be modified by low level functions.
> The intial value should come from readout, and after that it should
> be adjusted as part of the overall atomic state.
Well, as you can see currently this is even worse - has some weird
hardcoded stuff and is modified like that. Also if we are enabling the
dbuf slices, shouldn't we really determine what value should be there?
Also I wouldn't really always trust the readout, as to me it seems
icelake resets it constantly to 2 after suspend/resume.
>
> > + icl_program_dbuf_slices(dev_priv);
> > }
> >
> > 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");
> > - else
> > - /*
> > - * FIXME: for now pretend that the first slice is
> > always
> > - * enabled, see intel_enabled_dbuf_slices_num().
> > - */
> > - dev_priv->wm.skl_hw.ddb.enabled_slices = 1;
> > + /*
> > + * Disable all slices
> > + */
> > + dev_priv->wm.skl_hw.ddb.enabled_slices = 0;
> > + icl_program_dbuf_slices(dev_priv);
> > }
> >
> > static void icl_mbus_init(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_power.h
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_power.h
> > index 1da04f3e0fb3..b7057d68ad78 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_power.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_power.h
> > @@ -311,8 +311,10 @@ intel_display_power_put_async(struct
> > drm_i915_private *i915,
> > for ((wf) = intel_display_power_get((i915), (domain)); (wf); \
> > intel_display_power_put_async((i915), (domain), (wf)),
> > (wf) = 0)
> >
> > +int intel_dbuf_max_slices(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
> > void icl_dbuf_slices_update(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > u8 req_slices);
> > +void icl_program_dbuf_slices(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
> >
> > void chv_phy_powergate_lanes(struct intel_encoder *encoder,
> > bool override, unsigned int mask);
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
> > index 82e4e6bf08c3..96741e68633a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
> > @@ -51,6 +51,7 @@
> > #include "display/intel_bw.h"
> > #include "display/intel_cdclk.h"
> > #include "display/intel_display_types.h"
> > +#include "display/intel_display_power.h"
> > #include "display/intel_dp.h"
> > #include "display/intel_fbdev.h"
> > #include "display/intel_hotplug.h"
> > @@ -2588,6 +2589,10 @@ static int intel_runtime_resume(struct
> > device *kdev)
> > if (IS_VALLEYVIEW(dev_priv) || IS_CHERRYVIEW(dev_priv))
> > ret = vlv_resume_prepare(dev_priv, true);
> >
> > + /* Weird hack to fix ICL hardware bug, as it resets DBUF slices
> > reg */
> > + if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) == 11)
> > + icl_program_dbuf_slices(dev_priv);
> > +
> > intel_uncore_runtime_resume(&dev_priv->uncore);
> >
> > intel_runtime_pm_enable_interrupts(dev_priv);
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> > index 7e0f67babe20..a396977c9c2d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> > @@ -804,7 +804,7 @@ static inline bool skl_ddb_entry_equal(const
> > struct skl_ddb_entry *e1,
> > }
> >
> > struct skl_ddb_allocation {
>
> This struct is quite pointless. Should be killed off.
Legacy stuff, not added by me. Quite fine with removing it -
but should we really do all this at the same time and in same
patch?
>
> > - u8 enabled_slices; /* GEN11 has configurable 2 slices */
> > + u8 enabled_slices; /* Bitmask of currently enabled DBuf
> > slices */
> > };
> >
> > struct skl_ddb_values {
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c
> > index 1bb701d32a5d..8e86af505730 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c
> > @@ -614,7 +614,8 @@ static const struct intel_device_info
> > intel_cherryview_info = {
> > .has_gt_uc = 1, \
> > .display.has_hdcp = 1, \
> > .display.has_ipc = 1, \
> > - .ddb_size = 896
> > + .ddb_size = 896, \
> > + .supported_slices = 1
> >
> > #define SKL_PLATFORM \
> > GEN9_FEATURES, \
> > @@ -650,6 +651,7 @@ static const struct intel_device_info
> > intel_skylake_gt4_info = {
> > GEN(9), \
> > .is_lp = 1, \
> > .display.has_hotplug = 1, \
> > + .supported_slices = 1, \
> > .engine_mask = BIT(RCS0) | BIT(VCS0) | BIT(BCS0) | BIT(VECS0),
> > \
> > .pipe_mask = BIT(PIPE_A) | BIT(PIPE_B) | BIT(PIPE_C), \
> > .has_64bit_reloc = 1, \
> > @@ -737,6 +739,7 @@ static const struct intel_device_info
> > intel_coffeelake_gt3_info = {
> > GEN9_FEATURES, \
> > GEN(10), \
> > .ddb_size = 1024, \
> > + .supported_slices = 1, \
> > .display.has_dsc = 1, \
> > .has_coherent_ggtt = false, \
> > GLK_COLORS
> > @@ -773,6 +776,7 @@ static const struct intel_device_info
> > intel_cannonlake_info = {
> > }, \
> > GEN(11), \
> > .ddb_size = 2048, \
> > + .supported_slices = 2, \
> > .has_logical_ring_elsq = 1, \
> > .color = { .degamma_lut_size = 33, .gamma_lut_size = 262145 }
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
> > index a607ea520829..fba5731063d8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
> > @@ -7734,9 +7734,11 @@ enum {
> > #define DISP_ARB_CTL2 _MMIO(0x45004)
> > #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)
> > -#define DBUF_CTL_S2 _MMIO(0x44FE8)
> > +#define DBUF_S1_BIT BIT(0)
> > +#define DBUF_S2_BIT BIT(1)
>
> These are not bits inside DBUF_CTL so they should not be here.
> I'd just nuke them entirely. If you think we need more than an
> int to refer to a slice then IMO something simple like
>
> enum dbuf_slice {
> DBUF_S1,
> DBUF_S2,
> };
>
> would match the general apporach we use for other things much better
> rather than defining some shifted values.
We need to combine slices - so bitmask is quite suitable for that,
I can of course use this enum, but then I'll have to re-encode it
to bitmask anyways.
>
> > +#define DBUF_CTL _MMIO(0x45008)
> > +#define DBUF_CTL_S1 _MMIO(0x45008)
> > +#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_device_info.h
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.h
> > index 4bdf8a6cfb47..ba34e1a5c591 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.h
> > @@ -180,6 +180,7 @@ struct intel_device_info {
> > } display;
> >
> > u16 ddb_size; /* in blocks */
> > + u8 supported_slices; /* number of DBuf slices */
> >
> > /* Register offsets for the various display pipes and
> > transcoders */
> > int pipe_offsets[I915_MAX_TRANSCODERS];
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> > index 2d389e437e87..1ea81ab92429 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> > @@ -3586,24 +3586,20 @@ bool ilk_disable_lp_wm(struct drm_device
> > *dev)
> > return _ilk_disable_lp_wm(dev_priv, WM_DIRTY_LP_ALL);
> > }
> >
> > -static u8 intel_enabled_dbuf_slices_num(struct drm_i915_private
> > *dev_priv)
> > +static u8 intel_enabled_dbuf_slices(struct drm_i915_private
> > *dev_priv)
> > {
> > - u8 enabled_slices;
> > -
> > - /* Slice 1 will always be enabled */
> > - enabled_slices = 1;
> > + u8 enabled_slices = 0;
> >
> > /* Gen prior to GEN11 have only one DBuf slice */
> > if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) < 11)
> > - return enabled_slices;
> > + return DBUF_S1_BIT;
>
> I'd nuke this special case entirely and just read everything from the
> hw. Assuming we need readout somewhere.
We have it that way hardcoded right now in drm-tip. I think this is a
subject to other patch, but not this change. As I understand we need
to first figure out how to do it properly.
This patch anyway makes it better by at least removing hardcoded
relation between number of slices and which slices are enabled.
With current code there is no way for example to enable second DBuf
slice only, which is required by BSpec.
>
> >
> > - /*
> > - * FIXME: for now we'll only ever use 1 slice; pretend that we
> > have
> > - * only that 1 slice enabled until we have a proper way for on-
> > demand
> > - * toggling of the second slice.
> > - */
> > - if (0 && I915_READ(DBUF_CTL_S2) & DBUF_POWER_STATE)
> > - enabled_slices++;
> > + /* Check if second DBuf slice is enabled */
> > + if (I915_READ(DBUF_CTL_S1) & DBUF_POWER_STATE)
> > + enabled_slices |= DBUF_S1_BIT;
> > +
> > + if (I915_READ(DBUF_CTL_S2) & DBUF_POWER_STATE)
> > + enabled_slices |= DBUF_S2_BIT;
> >
> > return enabled_slices;
> > }
> > @@ -3812,36 +3808,38 @@ static u16 intel_get_ddb_size(struct
> > drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > const int num_active,
> > struct skl_ddb_allocation *ddb)
> > {
> > - const struct drm_display_mode *adjusted_mode;
> > - u64 total_data_bw;
> > u16 ddb_size = INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->ddb_size;
> > -
> > WARN_ON(ddb_size == 0);
> >
> > if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) < 11)
> > return ddb_size - 4; /* 4 blocks for bypass path
> > allocation */
> >
> > - adjusted_mode = &crtc_state->hw.adjusted_mode;
> > - total_data_bw = total_data_rate *
> > drm_mode_vrefresh(adjusted_mode);
> > + return ddb_size;
> > +}
> >
> > - /*
> > - * 12GB/s is maximum BW supported by single DBuf slice.
> > - *
> > - * FIXME dbuf slice code is broken:
> > - * - must wait for planes to stop using the slice before
> > powering it off
> > - * - plane straddling both slices is illegal in multi-pipe
> > scenarios
> > - * - should validate we stay within the hw bandwidth limits
> > - */
> > - if (0 && (num_active > 1 || total_data_bw >= GBps(12))) {
> > - ddb->enabled_slices = 2;
> > - } else {
> > - ddb->enabled_slices = 1;
> > - ddb_size /= 2;
> > - }
> > +/*
> > + * Calculate initial DBuf slice offset, based on slice size
> > + * and mask(i.e if slice size is 1024 and second slice is enabled
> > + * offset would be 1024)
> > + */
> > +static u32 skl_get_first_dbuf_slice_offset(u32 dbuf_slice_mask,
> > + u32 slice_size, u32
> > ddb_size)
> > +{
> > + u32 offset = 0;
> >
> > - return ddb_size;
> > + if (!dbuf_slice_mask)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + offset = (ffs(dbuf_slice_mask) - 1) * slice_size;
> > +
> > + WARN_ON(offset >= ddb_size);
> > + return offset;
> > }
> >
> > +static u32 i915_get_allowed_dbuf_mask(struct drm_i915_private
> > *dev_priv,
> > + int pipe, u32 active_pipes,
> > + const struct intel_crtc_state
> > *crtc_state);
> > +
> > static void
> > skl_ddb_get_pipe_allocation_limits(struct drm_i915_private
> > *dev_priv,
> > const struct intel_crtc_state
> > *crtc_state,
> > @@ -3857,7 +3855,14 @@ skl_ddb_get_pipe_allocation_limits(struct
> > drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > u32 pipe_width = 0, total_width = 0, width_before_pipe = 0;
> > enum pipe for_pipe = to_intel_crtc(for_crtc)->pipe;
> > u16 ddb_size;
> > + u32 ddb_range_size;
> > u32 i;
> > + u32 dbuf_slice_mask;
> > + u32 active_pipes;
> > + u32 offset;
> > + u32 slice_size;
> > + u32 total_slice_mask;
> > + u32 start, end;
> >
> > if (WARN_ON(!state) || !crtc_state->hw.active) {
> > alloc->start = 0;
> > @@ -3866,14 +3871,23 @@ skl_ddb_get_pipe_allocation_limits(struct
> > drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > return;
> > }
> >
> > - if (intel_state->active_pipe_changes)
> > + if (intel_state->active_pipe_changes) {
> > *num_active = hweight8(intel_state->active_pipes);
> > - else
> > + active_pipes = intel_state->active_pipes;
> > + } else {
> > *num_active = hweight8(dev_priv->active_pipes);
> > + active_pipes = dev_priv->active_pipes;
> > + }
> >
> > ddb_size = intel_get_ddb_size(dev_priv, crtc_state,
> > total_data_rate,
> > *num_active, ddb);
> >
> > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Got total ddb size %d\n", ddb_size);
> > +
> > + slice_size = ddb_size / INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->supported_slices;
> > +
> > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Got DBuf slice size %d\n", slice_size);
> > +
> > /*
> > * If the state doesn't change the active CRTC's or there is no
> > * modeset request, then there's no need to recalculate;
> > @@ -3891,20 +3905,70 @@ skl_ddb_get_pipe_allocation_limits(struct
> > drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > return;
> > }
> >
> > + /*
> > + * Get allowed DBuf slices for correspondent pipe and platform.
> > + */
> > + dbuf_slice_mask = i915_get_allowed_dbuf_mask(dev_priv,
> > for_pipe,
> > + active_pipes,
> > crtc_state);
>
> Quite a few redundant arguments. The function name looks alien.
>
> skl_crtc_possible_dbuf_slices() or something perhaps?
>
> > +
> > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("DBuf slice mask %x pipe %d active pipes %x\n",
> > + dbuf_slice_mask,
> > + for_pipe, active_pipes);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Figure out at which DBuf slice we start, i.e if we start at
> > Dbuf S2
> > + * and slice size is 1024, the offset would be 1024
> > + */
> > + offset = skl_get_first_dbuf_slice_offset(dbuf_slice_mask,
> > + slice_size, ddb_size);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Figure out total size of allowed DBuf slices, which is
> > basically
> > + * a number of allowed slices for that pipe multiplied by slice
> > size.
> > + * Inside of this
> > + * range ddb entries are still allocated in proportion to
> > display width.
> > + */
> > + ddb_range_size = hweight8(dbuf_slice_mask) * slice_size;
> > +
> > /*
> > * Watermark/ddb requirement highly depends upon width of the
> > * framebuffer, So instead of allocating DDB equally among
> > pipes
> > * distribute DDB based on resolution/width of the display.
> > */
> > + total_slice_mask = dbuf_slice_mask;
>
> Isn't this already taken care by the loop below?
>
> > for_each_new_intel_crtc_in_state(intel_state, crtc, crtc_state,
> > i) {
> > const struct drm_display_mode *adjusted_mode =
> > &crtc_state->hw.adjusted_mode;
> > enum pipe pipe = crtc->pipe;
> > int hdisplay, vdisplay;
> > + u32 pipe_dbuf_slice_mask = \
> > + i915_get_allowed_dbuf_mask(dev_priv,
> > + pipe,
> > + active_pipes,
> > + crtc_state);
> >
> > if (!crtc_state->hw.enable)
> > continue;
> >
> > + /*
> > + * According to BSpec pipe can share one dbuf slice
> > with another
> > + * pipes or pipe can use multiple dbufs, in both cases
> > we
> > + * account for other pipes only if they have exactly
> > same mask.
> > + * However we need to account how many slices we should
> > enable
> > + * in total.
> > + */
> > + total_slice_mask |= pipe_dbuf_slice_mask;
>
> total_slice_mask will now account only the crtcs in the state. What
> happens to the other pipes' slices?
Yes we need to iterate through all pipes/crtcs here, however
for getting correct dbuf slice mask most important is active_pipes.
However yes, I will change the loop for it to be more correct.
>
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Do not account pipes using other slice sets
> > + * luckily as of current BSpec slice sets do not
> > partially
> > + * intersect(pipes share either same one slice or same
> > slice set
> > + * i.e no partial intersection), so it is enough to
> > check for
> > + * equality for now.
> > + */
> > + if (dbuf_slice_mask != pipe_dbuf_slice_mask)
> > + continue;
> > +
> > drm_mode_get_hv_timing(adjusted_mode, &hdisplay,
> > &vdisplay);
> > total_width += hdisplay;
> >
> > @@ -3914,8 +3978,19 @@ skl_ddb_get_pipe_allocation_limits(struct
> > drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > pipe_width = hdisplay;
> > }
> >
> > - alloc->start = ddb_size * width_before_pipe / total_width;
> > - alloc->end = ddb_size * (width_before_pipe + pipe_width) /
> > total_width;
> > + ddb->enabled_slices = total_slice_mask;
> > +
> > + start = ddb_range_size * width_before_pipe / total_width;
> > + end = ddb_range_size * (width_before_pipe + pipe_width) /
> > total_width;
> > +
> > + alloc->start = offset + start;
> > + alloc->end = offset + end;
> > +
> > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Pipe %d ddb %d-%d\n", for_pipe,
> > + alloc->start, alloc->end);
> > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Enabled ddb slices mask %x num supported %d\n",
> > + ddb->enabled_slices,
> > + INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->supported_slices);
> > }
> >
> > static int skl_compute_wm_params(const struct intel_crtc_state
> > *crtc_state,
> > @@ -4036,7 +4111,8 @@ void skl_pipe_ddb_get_hw_state(struct
> > intel_crtc *crtc,
> > void skl_ddb_get_hw_state(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > struct skl_ddb_allocation *ddb /* out */)
> > {
> > - ddb->enabled_slices = intel_enabled_dbuf_slices_num(dev_priv);
> > + ddb->enabled_slices = intel_enabled_dbuf_slices(dev_priv);
> > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Got hw dbuf slices mask %x\n", ddb-
> > >enabled_slices);
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -4164,6 +4240,241 @@ skl_get_total_relative_data_rate(struct
> > intel_crtc_state *crtc_state,
> > return total_data_rate;
> > }
> >
> > +static uint_fixed_16_16_t
> > +icl_pipe_downscale_amount(const struct intel_crtc_state
> > *crtc_state)
> > +{
> > + u32 src_w, src_h, dst_w, dst_h;
> > + uint_fixed_16_16_t fp_w_ratio, fp_h_ratio;
> > + uint_fixed_16_16_t downscale_h, downscale_w;
> > + const struct drm_display_mode *adjusted_mode = &crtc_state-
> > >hw.adjusted_mode;
> > +
> > + src_w = crtc_state->pipe_src_w;
> > + src_h = crtc_state->pipe_src_h;
> > + dst_w = adjusted_mode->crtc_hdisplay;
> > + dst_h = adjusted_mode->crtc_vdisplay;
> > +
> > + fp_w_ratio = div_fixed16(src_w, dst_w);
> > + fp_h_ratio = div_fixed16(src_h, dst_h);
> > + downscale_w = max_fixed16(fp_w_ratio, u32_to_fixed16(1));
> > + downscale_h = max_fixed16(fp_h_ratio, u32_to_fixed16(1));
> > +
> > + return mul_fixed16(downscale_w, downscale_h);
> > +}
> > +
> > +uint_fixed_16_16_t
> > +icl_get_pipe_ratio(const struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state)
> > +{
> > + struct drm_plane *plane;
> > + const struct drm_plane_state *drm_plane_state;
> > + uint_fixed_16_16_t pipe_downscale, pipe_ratio;
> > + uint_fixed_16_16_t max_downscale = u32_to_fixed16(1);
> > + struct intel_crtc *crtc = to_intel_crtc(crtc_state->uapi.crtc);
> > +
> > + if (!crtc_state->uapi.enable)
> > + return max_downscale;
> > +
> > + drm_atomic_crtc_state_for_each_plane_state(plane,
> > drm_plane_state, &crtc_state->uapi) {
> > + uint_fixed_16_16_t plane_downscale;
> > + const struct intel_plane_state *plane_state =
> > + to_intel_plane_state(drm_plane_state);
> > +
> > + if (!intel_wm_plane_visible(crtc_state, plane_state))
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + plane_downscale =
> > skl_plane_downscale_amount(crtc_state, plane_state);
> > +
> > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Plane %d downscale amount %d.%d\n",
> > + to_intel_plane(plane)->id,
> > + plane_downscale.val >> 16,
> > + plane_downscale.val & 0xffff);
> > +
> > + max_downscale = max_fixed16(plane_downscale,
> > max_downscale);
> > + }
> > +
> > +
> > + pipe_downscale = icl_pipe_downscale_amount(crtc_state);
> > +
> > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Pipe %d downscale amount %d.%d\n",
> > + crtc->pipe, pipe_downscale.val >> 16,
> > + pipe_downscale.val & 0xffff);
> > +
> > + pipe_downscale = mul_fixed16(pipe_downscale, max_downscale);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Convert result to percentage: get the actual ratio instead
> > of rate,
> > + * then multiply by 100 to get percentage.
> > + */
> > + pipe_ratio = u32_to_fixed16(100 * div_round_up_u32_fixed16(1,
> > pipe_downscale));
> > +
> > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Pipe %d ratio %d.%d\n", crtc->pipe,
> > + pipe_ratio.val >> 16, pipe_ratio.val & 0xffff);
> > +
> > + return pipe_ratio;
> > +}
>
> Yuck. I just killed these.
I still need pipe_ratio fro ICL as you know, this is dictated by BSpec,
not by me.
>
> > +
> > +struct dbuf_slice_conf_entry {
> > + u32 dbuf_mask[I915_MAX_PIPES];
> > + u32 active_pipes;
> > +};
> > +
> > +
> > +#define ICL_PIPE_A_DBUF_SLICES(DBuf1) \
> > + { { DBuf1, 0, 0, 0 }, BIT(PIPE_A) }
> > +#define ICL_PIPE_B_DBUF_SLICES(DBuf1) \
> > + { { 0, DBuf1, 0, 0 }, BIT(PIPE_B) }
> > +#define ICL_PIPE_C_DBUF_SLICES(DBuf1) \
> > + { { 0, 0, DBuf1, 0 }, BIT(PIPE_C) }
> > +#define ICL_PIPE_D_DBUF_SLICES(DBuf1) \
> > + { { 0, 0, 0, DBuf1 }, BIT(PIPE_D) }
> > +#define ICL_PIPE_AB_DBUF_SLICES(DBuf1, DBuf2) \
> > + { { DBuf1, DBuf2, 0, 0 }, BIT(PIPE_A) | BIT(PIPE_B) }
> > +#define ICL_PIPE_BC_DBUF_SLICES(DBuf1, DBuf2) \
> > + { { 0, DBuf1, DBuf2, 0 }, BIT(PIPE_B) | BIT(PIPE_C) }
> > +#define ICL_PIPE_BD_DBUF_SLICES(DBuf1, DBuf2) \
> > + { { 0, DBuf1, 0, DBuf2 }, BIT(PIPE_B) | BIT(PIPE_D) }
> > +#define ICL_PIPE_AC_DBUF_SLICES(DBuf1, DBuf2) \
> > + { { DBuf1, 0, DBuf2, 0 }, BIT(PIPE_A) | BIT(PIPE_C) }
> > +#define ICL_PIPE_AD_DBUF_SLICES(DBuf1, DBuf2) \
> > + { { DBuf1, 0, 0, DBuf2 }, BIT(PIPE_A) | BIT(PIPE_D) }
> > +#define ICL_PIPE_CD_DBUF_SLICES(DBuf1, DBuf2) \
> > + { { 0, 0, DBuf1, DBuf2 }, BIT(PIPE_C) | BIT(PIPE_D) }
> > +#define ICL_PIPE_ABC_DBUF_SLICES(DBuf1, DBuf2, DBuf3) \
> > + { { DBuf1, DBuf2, DBuf3, 0 }, BIT(PIPE_A) | BIT(PIPE_B) |
> > BIT(PIPE_C) }
> > +#define ICL_PIPE_ACD_DBUF_SLICES(DBuf1, DBuf2, DBuf3) \
> > + { { DBuf1, 0, DBuf2, DBuf3 }, BIT(PIPE_A) | BIT(PIPE_C) |
> > BIT(PIPE_D) }
> > +#define ICL_PIPE_BCD_DBUF_SLICES(DBuf1, DBuf2, DBuf3) \
> > + { { 0, DBuf1, DBuf2, DBuf3 }, BIT(PIPE_B) | BIT(PIPE_C) |
> > BIT(PIPE_D) }
> > +#define ICL_PIPE_ABD_DBUF_SLICES(DBuf1, DBuf2, DBuf3) \
> > + { { DBuf1, DBuf2, 0, DBuf3 }, BIT(PIPE_A) | BIT(PIPE_B) |
> > BIT(PIPE_D) }
> > +#define ICL_PIPE_ABC_DBUF_SLICES(DBuf1, DBuf2, DBuf3) \
> > + { { DBuf1, DBuf2, DBuf3, 0 }, BIT(PIPE_A) | BIT(PIPE_B) |
> > BIT(PIPE_C) }
> > +#define ICL_PIPE_ABCD_DBUF_SLICES(DBuf1, DBuf2, DBuf3, DBuf4) \
> > + { { DBuf1, DBuf2, DBuf3, DBuf4 }, BIT(PIPE_A) | BIT(PIPE_B) | \
> > + BIT(PIPE_C) | BIT(PIPE_D) }
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Table taken from Bspec 12716
> > + * Pipes do have some preferred DBuf slice affinity,
> > + * plus there are some hardcoded requirements on how
> > + * those should be distributed for multipipe scenarios.
> > + * For more DBuf slices algorithm can get even more messy
> > + * and less readable, so decided to use a table almost
> > + * as is from BSpec itself - that way it is at least easier
> > + * to compare, change and check.
> > + */
> > +struct dbuf_slice_conf_entry icl_allowed_dbufs[] = {
> > +{ { 0, 0, 0, 0 }, 0 },
> > +ICL_PIPE_A_DBUF_SLICES(DBUF_S1_BIT | DBUF_S2_BIT), /* pipe ratio
> > < 88.8 */
> > +ICL_PIPE_A_DBUF_SLICES(DBUF_S1_BIT), /* for pipe
> > ratio >= 88.8 */
> > +ICL_PIPE_B_DBUF_SLICES(DBUF_S1_BIT | DBUF_S2_BIT), /* pipe ratio
> > < 88.8 */
> > +ICL_PIPE_B_DBUF_SLICES(DBUF_S1_BIT), /* for pipe
> > ratio >= 88.8 */
> > +ICL_PIPE_C_DBUF_SLICES(DBUF_S1_BIT | DBUF_S2_BIT), /* pipe ratio
> > < 88.8 */
> > +ICL_PIPE_C_DBUF_SLICES(DBUF_S2_BIT), /* for pipe
> > ratio >= 88.8 */
> > +ICL_PIPE_AB_DBUF_SLICES(DBUF_S1_BIT, DBUF_S2_BIT),
> > +ICL_PIPE_AC_DBUF_SLICES(DBUF_S1_BIT, DBUF_S2_BIT),
> > +ICL_PIPE_BC_DBUF_SLICES(DBUF_S1_BIT, DBUF_S2_BIT),
> > +ICL_PIPE_ABC_DBUF_SLICES(DBUF_S1_BIT, DBUF_S1_BIT, DBUF_S2_BIT),
> > +};
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Table taken from Bspec 49255
> > + * Pipes do have some preferred DBuf slice affinity,
> > + * plus there are some hardcoded requirements on how
> > + * those should be distributed for multipipe scenarios.
> > + * For more DBuf slices algorithm can get even more messy
> > + * and less readable, so decided to use a table almost
> > + * as is from BSpec itself - that way it is at least easier
> > + * to compare, change and check.
> > + */
> > +struct dbuf_slice_conf_entry tgl_allowed_dbufs[] = {
> > +{ { 0, 0, 0, 0 }, 0 },
> > +ICL_PIPE_A_DBUF_SLICES(DBUF_S1_BIT | DBUF_S2_BIT),
> > +ICL_PIPE_B_DBUF_SLICES(DBUF_S1_BIT | DBUF_S2_BIT),
> > +ICL_PIPE_C_DBUF_SLICES(DBUF_S1_BIT | DBUF_S2_BIT),
> > +ICL_PIPE_D_DBUF_SLICES(DBUF_S1_BIT | DBUF_S2_BIT),
> > +ICL_PIPE_AB_DBUF_SLICES(DBUF_S2_BIT, DBUF_S1_BIT),
> > +ICL_PIPE_AC_DBUF_SLICES(DBUF_S1_BIT, DBUF_S2_BIT),
> > +ICL_PIPE_BC_DBUF_SLICES(DBUF_S1_BIT, DBUF_S2_BIT),
> > +ICL_PIPE_AD_DBUF_SLICES(DBUF_S1_BIT, DBUF_S2_BIT),
> > +ICL_PIPE_BD_DBUF_SLICES(DBUF_S1_BIT, DBUF_S2_BIT),
> > +ICL_PIPE_CD_DBUF_SLICES(DBUF_S1_BIT, DBUF_S2_BIT),
> > +ICL_PIPE_ABD_DBUF_SLICES(DBUF_S1_BIT, DBUF_S1_BIT, DBUF_S2_BIT),
> > +ICL_PIPE_ABC_DBUF_SLICES(DBUF_S1_BIT, DBUF_S1_BIT, DBUF_S2_BIT),
> > +ICL_PIPE_ACD_DBUF_SLICES(DBUF_S1_BIT, DBUF_S2_BIT, DBUF_S2_BIT),
> > +ICL_PIPE_BCD_DBUF_SLICES(DBUF_S1_BIT, DBUF_S2_BIT, DBUF_S2_BIT),
> > +ICL_PIPE_ABCD_DBUF_SLICES(DBUF_S1_BIT, DBUF_S1_BIT, DBUF_S2_BIT,
> > DBUF_S2_BIT),
> > +};
>
> My eyes!
>
> I have to think we should be able to reduce all that to a handful
> of lines of code.
Yeah, then we are going to have a huge function with lots of weird
definitions, unfortunately BSpec table has quite strange DBuf
assignments like
+ICL_PIPE_AB_DBUF_SLICES(DBUF_S2_BIT, DBUF_S1_BIT),
+ICL_PIPE_AC_DBUF_SLICES(DBUF_S1_BIT, DBUF_S2_BIT),
i.e slices can get mixed in a quite various ways. There is no
rational pattern in those and could be even dangerous to try to
optimize it some way, as one day it might change again in some
unpredictable way.
Would you prefer to have it like
if (pipes are A and B)
program S2 to A and S1 to B
if (pipes are A and C)
program S1 to A and S2 to C
...
I would prefer at least to see it in a comparable way with the
table we have in BSpec, rather than having lots of weird looking
if-else statements, GEN checks and so on.
I knew this table was not going to look like it is done typically
here - but really my opinion that it is way better than hardcoding
it into some weird algorithm, which would be hard to compare to
initial table, which is already strange enough.
If you don't like it - could you please explain why this is exactly
worse than having long functions with hardcoded checks?
I think this is pretty stupid to fix stuff which looks new or unusual
just because somebody doesn't like it, without even constructive
arguing.
- Stan
>
>
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * This function
>
> "This function" is totally redundant. Ditto elsewhere.
>
> > finds an entry with same enabled pipe configuration and
> > + * returns correspondent DBuf slice mask as stated in BSpec for
> > particular
> > + * platform.
> > + */
> > +static u32 icl_get_allowed_dbuf_mask(int pipe,
> > + u32 active_pipes,
> > + const struct intel_crtc_state
> > *crtc_state)
> > +{
> > + int i;
> > + uint_fixed_16_16_t pipe_ratio;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Calculate pipe ratio as stated in BSpec 28692
> > + */
> > + pipe_ratio = icl_get_pipe_ratio(crtc_state);
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(icl_allowed_dbufs); i++) {
> > + if (icl_allowed_dbufs[i].active_pipes == active_pipes)
> > {
> > + if (hweight32(active_pipes) == 1) {
> > + /*
> > + * According to BSpec 12716: if ratio
> > >= 88.8
> > + * always use single dbuf slice.
> > + */
> > + if (pipe_ratio.val >= div_fixed16(888,
> > 10).val)
> > + ++i;
> > + }
> > + return icl_allowed_dbufs[i].dbuf_mask[pipe];
> > + }
> > + }
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * This function finds an entry with same enabled pipe
> > configuration and
> > + * returns correspondent DBuf slice mask as stated in BSpec for
> > particular
> > + * platform.
> > + */
> > +static u32 tgl_get_allowed_dbuf_mask(int pipe,
> > + u32 active_pipes,
> > + const struct intel_crtc_state
> > *crtc_state)
> > +{
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(tgl_allowed_dbufs); i++) {
> > + if (tgl_allowed_dbufs[i].active_pipes == active_pipes)
> > + return tgl_allowed_dbufs[i].dbuf_mask[pipe];
> > + }
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +u32 i915_get_allowed_dbuf_mask(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > + int pipe, u32 active_pipes,
> > + const struct intel_crtc_state
> > *crtc_state)
> > +{
> > + if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 11))
> > + return icl_get_allowed_dbuf_mask(pipe,
> > + active_pipes,
> > + crtc_state);
> > + else if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 12))
> > + return tgl_get_allowed_dbuf_mask(pipe,
> > + active_pipes,
> > + crtc_state);
> > + /*
> > + * For anything else just return one slice yet.
> > + * Should be extended for other platforms.
> > + */
> > + return DBUF_S1_BIT;
> > +}
> > +
> > static u64
> > icl_get_total_relative_data_rate(struct intel_crtc_state
> > *crtc_state,
> > u64 *plane_data_rate)
> > --
> > 2.17.1
>
>
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
