On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 05:18:02PM -0800, Manasi Navare wrote: > On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 04:32:32PM -0800, Matt Roper wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 01:14:23PM -0800, Manasi Navare wrote: > > > In case of tiled displays, all the tiles are linke dto each other > > > > Minor typo on "linked to" here. > > I will fix it > > > > > > for transcoder port sync. So in intel_atomic_check() we need to make > > > sure that we add all the tiles to the modeset and if one of the > > > tiles needs a full modeset then mark all other tiles for a full modeset. > > > > > > Suggested-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Bugzilla: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/5 > > > > I think we're moving to "Closes:" as the annotation here now that it's > > not actually a bugzilla bug database anymore. > > Ok cool, will change that to Closes > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Manasi Navare <manasi.d.navare@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c | 78 ++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 78 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c > > > index 803993a01ca7..7263eaa66cda 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c > > > @@ -14066,6 +14066,80 @@ static int intel_atomic_check_crtcs(struct intel_atomic_state *state) > > > return 0; > > > } > > > > > > +static int > > > +intel_dp_modeset_all_tiles(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, > > > + struct intel_atomic_state *state, int tile_grp_id) > > > +{ > > > + struct drm_connector *conn_iter; > > > + struct drm_connector_list_iter conn_list_iter; > > > + struct drm_crtc_state *crtc_state; > > > + > > > + drm_connector_list_iter_begin(&dev_priv->drm, &conn_list_iter); > > > + drm_for_each_connector_iter(conn_iter, &conn_list_iter) { > > > + struct drm_connector_state *conn_iter_state; > > > + > > > + if (!conn_iter->has_tile) > > > + continue; > > > + conn_iter_state = drm_atomic_get_connector_state(&state->base, > > > + conn_iter); > > > + if (IS_ERR(conn_iter_state)) { > > > + drm_connector_list_iter_end(&conn_list_iter); > > > + return PTR_ERR(conn_iter_state); > > > + } > > > + > > > + if (!conn_iter_state->crtc) > > > + continue; > > > + > > > + if (conn_iter->tile_group->id != tile_grp_id) > > > + continue; > > > + > > > + crtc_state = drm_atomic_get_crtc_state(&state->base, conn_iter_state->crtc); > > > + if (IS_ERR(crtc_state)) { > > > + drm_connector_list_iter_end(&conn_list_iter); > > > + return PTR_ERR(conn_iter_state); > > > + } > > > + crtc_state->mode_changed = true; > > > + } > > > + drm_connector_list_iter_end(&conn_list_iter); > > > + > > > + return 0; > > > +} > > > + > > > +static int > > > +intel_dp_atomic_trans_port_sync_check(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, > > > + struct intel_atomic_state *state) > > > +{ > > > + struct drm_connector *connector; > > > + struct drm_crtc_state *crtc_state; > > > + struct drm_connector_state *connector_state; > > > + int i, ret, tile_grp_id = 0; > > > + > > > + if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) < 11) > > > + return 0; > > > + > > > + /* Is tiled, mark all other tiled CRTCs as needing a modeset */ > > > + for_each_new_connector_in_state(&state->base, connector, connector_state, i) { > > > + if (!connector->has_tile) > > > + continue; > > > + if (connector_state->crtc && > > > + tile_grp_id != connector->tile_group->id) { > > > + crtc_state = drm_atomic_get_new_crtc_state(&state->base, > > > + connector_state->crtc); > > > + if (!drm_atomic_crtc_needs_modeset(crtc_state)) > > > + continue; > > > + > > > + tile_grp_id = connector->tile_group->id; > > > + } else > > > > Minor kernel coding style violation; if we use {} on one branch of an > > if, we need to use them on all. > > > > Yes i got a checkpatch check warning, will fix it > > > > + continue; > > > + > > > + ret = intel_dp_modeset_all_tiles(dev_priv, state, tile_grp_id); > > > + if (ret) > > > + return ret; > > > + } > > > + > > > + return 0; > > > +} > > > + > > > /** > > > * intel_atomic_check - validate state object > > > * @dev: drm device > > > @@ -14093,6 +14167,10 @@ static int intel_atomic_check(struct drm_device *dev, > > > if (ret) > > > goto fail; > > > > > > + ret = intel_dp_atomic_trans_port_sync_check(dev_priv, state); > > > + if (ret) > > > + goto fail; > > > > Should this happen before the drm_atomic_helper_check_modeset() just > > above (or should we re-call that function if we flag the other tile as > > needing a modeset)? The kerneldoc on that function says: > > > > """ > > Drivers which set &drm_crtc_state.mode_changed [...] _must_ call this > > function afterwards after that change. It is permitted to call this > > function multiple times for the same update ... > > """ > > > > IMO, here infact it makes sense to call my function after the drm_atomic_helper_check_modeset() > because it directly sets the new_crtc_state->mode_changed to true for all tiles if 1 of them needs > a full modeset. > And whether that one tile needs a full modeset or not will be decided based on mode changed for that set > in drm_atomic_helper_check_modeset. Okay, makes sense. But based on the comment, I believe we still need to call the helper a second time during/after your function in the event that we've switched any additional crtcs to mode_changed=true. I'm also wondering whether we should eventually move most of your logic here out of i915 and into a general drm helper that other drivers can utilize too. But I'm okay with doing that as a followup after we've landed it and verified it as an i915-specific change first. Matt > > Manasi > > > > > Matt > > > > > + > > > for_each_oldnew_intel_crtc_in_state(state, crtc, old_crtc_state, > > > new_crtc_state, i) { > > > if (!needs_modeset(new_crtc_state)) { > > > -- > > > 2.19.1 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Intel-gfx mailing list > > > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx > > > > -- > > Matt Roper > > Graphics Software Engineer > > VTT-OSGC Platform Enablement > > Intel Corporation > > (916) 356-2795 -- Matt Roper Graphics Software Engineer VTT-OSGC Platform Enablement Intel Corporation (916) 356-2795 _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
