Revisiting this thread after update from the bspec. > -----Original Message----- > From: Nikula, Jani <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 8:40 PM > To: Kulkarni, Vandita <vandita.kulkarni@xxxxxxxxx>; Lisovskiy, Stanislav > <stanislav.lisovskiy@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; intel- > gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Navare, Manasi D <manasi.d.navare@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: RE: [PATCH] drm/i915/display: Enable second VDSC > engine for higher moderates > > On Tue, 14 Sep 2021, "Kulkarni, Vandita" <vandita.kulkarni@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Nikula, Jani <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 7:33 PM > >> To: Lisovskiy, Stanislav <stanislav.lisovskiy@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Kulkarni, Vandita > >> <vandita.kulkarni@xxxxxxxxx>; intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > >> Navare, Manasi D <manasi.d.navare@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/display: Enable second VDSC > >> engine for higher moderates > >> > >> On Tue, 14 Sep 2021, "Lisovskiy, Stanislav" > >> <stanislav.lisovskiy@xxxxxxxxx> > >> wrote: > >> > On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 04:04:25PM +0300, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote: > >> >> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 03:04:11PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > >> >> > On Tue, 14 Sep 2021, "Lisovskiy, Stanislav" > >> <stanislav.lisovskiy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> > > On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 10:48:46AM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > >> >> > >> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 07:31:46AM +0000, Kulkarni, Vandita > wrote: > >> >> > >> > > -----Original Message----- > >> >> > >> > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> >> > >> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 12:59 PM > >> >> > >> > > To: Kulkarni, Vandita <vandita.kulkarni@xxxxxxxxx> > >> >> > >> > > Cc: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Nikula, Jani > >> >> > >> > > <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx>; Navare, Manasi D > >> >> > >> > > <manasi.d.navare@xxxxxxxxx> > >> >> > >> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/display: Enable > >> >> > >> > > second VDSC engine for higher moderates > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 08:09:23PM +0530, Vandita > >> >> > >> > > Kulkarni > >> wrote: > >> >> > >> > > > Each VDSC operates with 1ppc throughput, hence enable > >> >> > >> > > > the second VDSC engine when moderate is higher that the > >> >> > >> > > > current > >> cdclk. > >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > Signed-off-by: Vandita Kulkarni > >> >> > >> > > > <vandita.kulkarni@xxxxxxxxx> > >> >> > >> > > > --- > >> >> > >> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c | 12 > >> >> > >> > > > ++++++++++-- > >> >> > >> > > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c > >> >> > >> > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c > >> >> > >> > > > index 161c33b2c869..55878f65f724 100644 > >> >> > >> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c > >> >> > >> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c > >> >> > >> > > > @@ -70,6 +70,7 @@ > >> >> > >> > > > #include "intel_tc.h" > >> >> > >> > > > #include "intel_vdsc.h" > >> >> > >> > > > #include "intel_vrr.h" > >> >> > >> > > > +#include "intel_cdclk.h" > >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > #define DP_DPRX_ESI_LEN 14 > >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > @@ -1291,10 +1292,13 @@ static int > >> >> > >> > > > intel_dp_dsc_compute_config(struct > >> >> > >> > > intel_dp *intel_dp, > >> >> > >> > > > struct > drm_connector_state > >> *conn_state, > >> >> > >> > > > struct link_config_limits > *limits) { > >> >> > >> > > > + struct intel_cdclk_state *cdclk_state; > >> >> > >> > > > struct intel_digital_port *dig_port = > >> dp_to_dig_port(intel_dp); > >> >> > >> > > > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = > to_i915(dig_port- > >> >> > >> > > >base.base.dev); > >> >> > >> > > > const struct drm_display_mode *adjusted_mode = > >> >> > >> > > > &pipe_config->hw.adjusted_mode; > >> >> > >> > > > + struct intel_atomic_state *state = > >> >> > >> > > > + > to_intel_atomic_state(pipe_config- > >> >> > >> > > >uapi.state); > >> >> > >> > > > int pipe_bpp; > >> >> > >> > > > int ret; > >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > @@ -1373,12 +1377,16 @@ static int > >> >> > >> > > > intel_dp_dsc_compute_config(struct > >> >> > >> > > intel_dp *intel_dp, > >> >> > >> > > > } > >> >> > >> > > > } > >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > + cdclk_state = intel_atomic_get_cdclk_state(state); > >> >> > >> > > > + if (IS_ERR(cdclk_state)) > >> >> > >> > > > + return PTR_ERR(cdclk_state); > >> >> > >> > > > + > >> >> > >> > > > /* > >> >> > >> > > > * VDSC engine operates at 1 Pixel per clock, so if > >> >> > >> > > > peak pixel > >> rate > >> >> > >> > > > - * is greater than the maximum Cdclock and if slice > count is > >> even > >> >> > >> > > > + * is greater than the current Cdclock and if slice > >> >> > >> > > > +count is even > >> >> > >> > > > * then we need to use 2 VDSC instances. > >> >> > >> > > > */ > >> >> > >> > > > - if (adjusted_mode->crtc_clock > dev_priv- > >max_cdclk_freq > >> || > >> >> > >> > > > + if (adjusted_mode->crtc_clock > > >> >> > >> > > > +cdclk_state->actual.cdclk || > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > This is wrong. We compute the cdclk based on the > >> >> > >> > > requirements of the mode/etc., not the other way around. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > According to BSpec guideline, we decide whether we enable or > >> >> > > disable second VDSC engine, based on that condition. As I > >> >> > > understand that one is about DSC config calculation, based on > >> >> > > CDCLK > >> which was calculated. > >> >> > > >> >> > Point is, at the time compute_config gets called, what > >> >> > guarantees are there that cdclk_state->actual.cdclk contains > anything useful? > >> >> > This is the design we have. > >> >> > >> >> That is actually good question, was willing to check that as well. > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > > If we bump up CDCLK, to avoid this, will we even then use a > >> >> > > second > >> VDSC ever? > >> >> > > >> >> > I think we'll eventually need better logic than unconditionally > >> >> > bumping to max, and it needs to take *both* the cdclk and the > >> >> > number of dsc engines into account. The referenced bspec only > >> >> > has the vdsc clock perspective, not overall perspective. > >> >> > >> >> What we need to clarify here is that how this is supposed to work > >> >> in > >> theory. > >> >> Basically same issue can be fixed by both increasing the CDCLK or > >> >> enabling 2nd VDSC engine. > >> >> There should be some guideline telling us, how to prioritize. > >> >> From overall perspective as I understand, by default, we are able > >> >> to keep CDCLK 2 times less than pixel rate(see > >> >> intel_pixel_rate_to_cdclk), however due to that VDSC limitation > >> >> that it can use only 1 ppc this becomes, not applicable anymore(at > >> >> least as of BSpec 49259), so we have to increase amount of VDSC > >> >> instances > >> then. > >> >> > >> >> So the question is now - what is more optimal here? > >> >> Also if we bump up CDCLK(which we have done many times already in > >> >> fact), we then need to add some logic to intel_compute_min_cdclk > >> >> to check if we are using DSC or not, because otherwise we don't > >> >> really need > >> to do that. > >> > >> intel_compute_min_cdclk() already needs to be dsc aware when slice > >> count is 1 and we can't use two dsc engines anyway. See the recent > >> commit fe01883fdcef ("drm/i915: Get proper min cdclk if vDSC enabled"). > >> > >> Looking again, I'm not sure that does the right decision for when > >> dsc.slice_count > 1, but dsc.split == false. It should probably use > >> dsc.split for the decision. > >> > >> >> > >> >> Stan > >> > > >> > Checked and indeed, encoder->compute_config is called way before, > >> > basically CDCLK calculation is called almost in the end of > >> > atomic_check, so in compute_config, there would be an old CDCLK > >> > value copied from previous cdclk state, but not the last one. > >> > > >> > Vandita, this means we actually can't do it that way, if you want > >> > to do anything with VDSC based on CDCLK this has to be done _after_ > >> > intel_compute_min_cdclk was called. Which is not very sweet, I guess. > >> > > >> > So as of current architecture, it seems that the easiest way is > >> > indeed to bump the CDCLK or we need to figure the way how to enable > >> > 2nd VDSC somewhere else, after CDCLK was calculated. > >> > >> Alternatively, we could use two dsc engines more aggressively, but > >> that decision currently can't take overall chosen cdclk into account. > >> > >> We'll end up sometimes unnecessarily using a too high cdclk or two > >> dsc engines, just have to pick the poison. > >> > >> I think trying to do dsc decisions after intel_compute_min_cdclk() > >> gets way too complicated. > > > > In this case, can we just use the 2nd VDSC engine if slice_count is 2 or > more? > > Which would mean we always operate in joiner enabled mode(small > > joiner) of all the compression modes of operation mentioned in the > > table bspec: 49259 Because we are still going to hit the max cdclk restriction > for higher resolutions, and many lower resolutions wouldn’t need max cdclk. > > And eventually once we have more details on cd clk vs 2VDSC engine we > > could add the logic to choose one over the other? > > > > I see that in case of DSI we do split = true, for slice_count > 1 but that > would need a different set of checks, thats a TBD. > > > > Or Do you suggest I just do this for now max cdclk when slice_count =1 > > (what we are doing now) replace with compression = true and split = > > false > > I think the check in intel_compute_min_cdclk() should be: > > if (crtc_state->dsc.compression_enable && !crtc_state- > >dsc.dsc_split) > > That's a separate change. > > Enabling two dsc engines more aggressively... I don't mind doing it > unconditionally when slice count > 1 for starters. But I think we'll need to > improve this going forward, including fixing the mode valid checks etc. as > we've discussed. Design recommendation is to use 2 VDSC instances while meeting the following constraint so that cdclk can stay as low as possible. DP/HDMI PPR spec provided slice size < DPCD provided MaxSliceWidth Thanks, Vandita > > Ville, any objections? > > BR, > Jani. > > > > > > Thanks, > > Vandita > >> > >> BR, > >> Jani > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> > Stan > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > BR, > >> >> > Jani. > >> >> > > >> >> > > Another thing is that probably enabling second VDSC is cheaper > >> >> > > in terms of power consumption, than bumping up the CDCLK. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Stan > >> >> > > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > Okay , So you suggest that we set the cd clock to max when > >> >> > >> > we > >> have such requirement, than enabling the second engine? > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> That seems like the easiest solution. Another option might be > >> >> > >> to come up with some lower dotclock limit for the use of the > >> >> > >> second vdsc. But not sure we know where the tipping point is > >> >> > >> wrt. powr > >> consumption. > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> -- > >> >> > >> Ville Syrjälä > >> >> > >> Intel > >> >> > > >> >> > -- > >> >> > Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center > >> > >> -- > >> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center > > -- > Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center