On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 09:31:19AM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 04, 2022 at 03:58:29PM -0800, Navare, Manasi wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 08:38:23PM +0200, Ville Syrjala wrote:
> > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Get rid of the inflexible bigjoiner_linked_crtc pointer thing
> > > and just track things as a bitmask of pipes instead. We can
> > > also nuke the bigjoiner_slave boolean as the role of the pipe
> > > can be determined from its position in the bitmask.
> > >
> > > It might be possible to nuke the bigjoiner boolean as well
> > > if we make encoder.compute_config() do the bitmask assignment
> > > directly for the master pipe. But for now I left that alone so
> > > that encoer.compute_config() will just flag the state as needing
> > > bigjoiner, and the intel_atomic_check_bigjoiner() is still
> > > responsible for determining the bitmask. But that may have to change
> > > as the encoder may be in the best position to determine how
> > > exactly we should populate the bitmask.
> > >
> > > Most places that just looked at the single bigjoiner_linked_crtc
> > > now iterate over the whole bitmask, eliminating the singular
> > > slave pipe assumption.
> >
> > Okay so trying to understand the design here:
> > For Pipe A + B Bigjoiner and C + D bigjoiner for example,
> > bitmasks will be as below:
> >
> > A : 0011
> > B: 0011
> >
> > C: 1100
> > D: 1100
> >
> > Is this correct understanding? Because we would mark both the master pipe and slave pipe in a bitmask right?
>
> Yes.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > .../gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_atomic_plane.c | 5 +-
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_ddi.c | 12 +-
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c | 305 ++++++++++++------
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.h | 2 +
> > > .../drm/i915/display/intel_display_debugfs.c | 5 +-
> > > .../drm/i915/display/intel_display_types.h | 7 +-
> > > .../drm/i915/display/intel_plane_initial.c | 7 -
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vdsc.c | 43 ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vdsc.h | 1 -
> > > 9 files changed, 227 insertions(+), 160 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_atomic_plane.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_atomic_plane.c
> > > index 41d52889dfce..0e15fe908855 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_atomic_plane.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_atomic_plane.c
> > > @@ -404,9 +404,10 @@ int intel_plane_atomic_check(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
> > > intel_atomic_get_new_crtc_state(state, crtc);
> > >
> > > if (new_crtc_state && intel_crtc_is_bigjoiner_slave(new_crtc_state)) {
> > > + struct intel_crtc *master_crtc =
> > > + intel_master_crtc(new_crtc_state);
> > > struct intel_plane *master_plane =
> > > - intel_crtc_get_plane(new_crtc_state->bigjoiner_linked_crtc,
> > > - plane->id);
> > > + intel_crtc_get_plane(master_crtc, plane->id);
> > >
> > > new_master_plane_state =
> > > intel_atomic_get_new_plane_state(state, master_plane);
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_ddi.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_ddi.c
> > > index 3f0e1e127595..9dee12986991 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_ddi.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_ddi.c
> > > @@ -2703,6 +2703,7 @@ static void intel_ddi_post_disable(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
> > > struct intel_digital_port *dig_port = enc_to_dig_port(encoder);
> > > enum phy phy = intel_port_to_phy(dev_priv, encoder->port);
> > > bool is_tc_port = intel_phy_is_tc(dev_priv, phy);
> > > + struct intel_crtc *slave_crtc;
> > >
> > > if (!intel_crtc_has_type(old_crtc_state, INTEL_OUTPUT_DP_MST)) {
> > > intel_crtc_vblank_off(old_crtc_state);
> > > @@ -2721,9 +2722,8 @@ static void intel_ddi_post_disable(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
> > > ilk_pfit_disable(old_crtc_state);
> > > }
> > >
> > > - if (old_crtc_state->bigjoiner_linked_crtc) {
> > > - struct intel_crtc *slave_crtc =
> > > - old_crtc_state->bigjoiner_linked_crtc;
> > > + for_each_intel_crtc_in_pipe_mask(&dev_priv->drm, slave_crtc,
> > > + intel_crtc_bigjoiner_slave_pipes(old_crtc_state)) {
> > > const struct intel_crtc_state *old_slave_crtc_state =
> > > intel_atomic_get_old_crtc_state(state, slave_crtc);
> > >
> > > @@ -3041,6 +3041,7 @@ intel_ddi_update_prepare(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
> > > struct intel_encoder *encoder,
> > > struct intel_crtc *crtc)
> > > {
> > > + struct drm_i915_private *i915 = to_i915(state->base.dev);
> > > struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state =
> > > crtc ? intel_atomic_get_new_crtc_state(state, crtc) : NULL;
> > > int required_lanes = crtc_state ? crtc_state->lane_count : 1;
> > > @@ -3050,11 +3051,12 @@ intel_ddi_update_prepare(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
> > > intel_tc_port_get_link(enc_to_dig_port(encoder),
> > > required_lanes);
> > > if (crtc_state && crtc_state->hw.active) {
> > > - struct intel_crtc *slave_crtc = crtc_state->bigjoiner_linked_crtc;
> > > + struct intel_crtc *slave_crtc;
> > >
> > > intel_update_active_dpll(state, crtc, encoder);
> > >
> > > - if (slave_crtc)
> > > + for_each_intel_crtc_in_pipe_mask(&i915->drm, slave_crtc,
> > > + intel_crtc_bigjoiner_slave_pipes(crtc_state))
> > > intel_update_active_dpll(state, slave_crtc, encoder);
> > > }
> > > }
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> > > index 34b6b4ab3a1b..f5fc283f8f73 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> > > @@ -337,20 +337,38 @@ is_trans_port_sync_mode(const struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state)
> > > is_trans_port_sync_slave(crtc_state);
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static enum pipe bigjoiner_master_pipe(const struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state)
> > > +{
> > > + return ffs(crtc_state->bigjoiner_pipes) - 1;
> >
> > Here we have both master and slave pipe bits set in a bitmask: This would result in ffs(0011) -1 = 2 which wouldnt be correct?
>
> ffs(0b0011) == 1
Okay yes sorry yes ffs finds the position of the first least significant bit so should be 1 , and then master pipe would be 0
For when its between C & D, then ffs(1100) will be 3 and master pipe would be 2 which is C so yes this makes sense now.
>
> <snip>
> > > static int intel_atomic_check_bigjoiner(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
> > > struct intel_crtc *master_crtc)
> > > {
> > > struct drm_i915_private *i915 = to_i915(state->base.dev);
> > > struct intel_crtc_state *master_crtc_state =
> > > intel_atomic_get_new_crtc_state(state, master_crtc);
> > > - struct intel_crtc_state *slave_crtc_state;
> > > struct intel_crtc *slave_crtc;
> > > + u8 slave_pipes;
> > >
> > > - WARN_ON(master_crtc_state->bigjoiner_linked_crtc);
> > > - WARN_ON(intel_crtc_is_bigjoiner_slave(master_crtc_state));
> > > + /*
> > > + * TODO: encoder.compute_config() may be the best
> > > + * place to populate the bitmask for the master crtc.
> > > + * For now encoder.compute_config() just flags things
> > > + * as needing bigjoiner and we populate the bitmask
> > > + * here.
> > > + */
> > > + WARN_ON(master_crtc_state->bigjoiner_pipes);
> > >
> > > if (!master_crtc_state->bigjoiner)
> > > return 0;
> > >
> > > - slave_crtc = intel_dsc_get_bigjoiner_secondary(master_crtc);
> > > - if (!slave_crtc) {
> > > + slave_pipes = BIT(master_crtc->pipe + 1);
> > > +
> > > + if (slave_pipes & ~bigjoiner_pipes(i915)) {
> > > drm_dbg_kms(&i915->drm,
> > > - "[CRTC:%d:%s] Big joiner configuration requires "
> > > - "CRTC + 1 to be used, doesn't exist\n",
> > > + "[CRTC:%d:%s] Cannot act as big joiner master "
> > > + "(need 0x%x as slave pipes, only 0x%x possible)\n",
> > > + master_crtc->base.base.id, master_crtc->base.name,
> > > + slave_pipes, bigjoiner_pipes(i915));
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> >
> > I dont get how we are checking for the invalid slave pipe here?
> > slave_pipes = BIT(1) = 0010
> > bigjoiner_pipes = 0000 (since we havents et anything in compute config)
>
> bigjoiner_pipes() is a bitmask of pipes that support bigjoiner.
> It is constant for the platform.
>
> > so slave_pipes & ~bigjoiner_pipes = 0010 & 1111 = 0010 so the condition will be true
> > And then we are flagging it as error why?
>
> If we come here with eg. master == pipe D on TGL then we'd
> mark the non-existent pipe E as the slave. This check will
> catch that.
Okay yes makes sense, I was mistaking bigjoiner_pipes(i915) with crtc_state->bigjoiner_pipes
Okay with these calrifications,
Reviewed-by: Manasi Navare <manasi.d.navare@xxxxxxxxx>
Manasi
>
> --
> Ville Syrjälä
> Intel
