On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 04:26:42PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 02:19:41PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> > From: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > For now there are no callers, but these functions are going to be
> > needed for the code that allows Package C8+. Other future features may
> > also require this code.
> >
>
> The thing that's missing from the patches is any sort of assertions
> about things being on before the disable sequence. Is this something we
> don't need to address?
>
> > Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h | 7 +++
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 95 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h | 3 ++
> > 3 files changed, 105 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
> > index be6164f..8e5a5ec 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
> > @@ -4930,7 +4930,14 @@
> > #define LCPLL_CLK_FREQ_450 (0<<26)
> > #define LCPLL_CD_CLOCK_DISABLE (1<<25)
> > #define LCPLL_CD2X_CLOCK_DISABLE (1<<23)
> > +#define LCPLL_POWER_DOWN_ALLOW (1<<22)
> > #define LCPLL_CD_SOURCE_FCLK (1<<21)
> > +#define LCPLL_CD_SOURCE_FCLK_DONE (1<<19)
>
> Hmm... the doc I am looking at says
Oops. The doc I was looking at had some different names for things, was
what I wanted to say.
>
> > +
> > +#define D_COMP (MCHBAR_MIRROR_BASE_SNB + 0x5F0C)
> > +#define D_COMP_RCOMP_IN_PROGRESS (1<<9)
> > +#define D_COMP_COMP_FORCE (1<<8)
> > +#define D_COMP_COMP_DISABLE (1<<0)
> >
> > /* Pipe WM_LINETIME - watermark line time */
> > #define PIPE_WM_LINETIME_A 0x45270
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> > index 059c9a8..ffb08bf 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> > @@ -5922,6 +5922,101 @@ static bool ironlake_get_pipe_config(struct intel_crtc *crtc,
> > return true;
> > }
> >
> > +/*
> > + * This function implements pieces of two sequences from BSpec:
> > + * - Sequence for display software to disable LCPLL
> > + * - Sequence for display software to allow package C8+
> > + * The steps implemented here are just the steps that actually touch the LCPLL
> > + * register. Callers should take care of disabling all the display engine
> > + * functions, doing the mode unset, fixing interrupts, etc.
> > + */
> > +void hsw_disable_lcpll(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > + bool switch_to_fclk, bool allow_power_down)
> > +{
> > + uint32_t val;
> > +
> > + val = I915_READ(LCPLL_CTL);
> > +
> > + if (switch_to_fclk) {
> > + val |= LCPLL_CD_SOURCE_FCLK;
> > + I915_WRITE(LCPLL_CTL, val);
> > + POSTING_READ(LCPLL_CTL);
> > +
> > + udelay(1);
> > +
> > + val = I915_READ(LCPLL_CTL);
> > + if (!(val & LCPLL_CD_SOURCE_FCLK_DONE))
> > + DRM_ERROR("Switching to FCLK failed\n");
>
> wait_for_us(..., 1)?
>
> > + }
> > +
> > + val |= LCPLL_PLL_DISABLE;
> > + I915_WRITE(LCPLL_CTL, val);
> > + POSTING_READ(LCPLL_CTL);
> > +
> > + if (wait_for((I915_READ(LCPLL_CTL) & LCPLL_PLL_LOCK) == 0, 1))
> > + DRM_ERROR("LCPLL still locked\n");
> > +
> > + val = I915_READ(D_COMP);
> > + val |= D_COMP_COMP_DISABLE;
> > + I915_WRITE(D_COMP, val);
> > + POSTING_READ(D_COMP);
> > +
> > + udelay(2);
>
> ndelay(100)?
>
> > +
> > + val = I915_READ(D_COMP);
> > + if (val & D_COMP_RCOMP_IN_PROGRESS)
> > + DRM_ERROR("D_COMP RCOMP still in progress\n");
>
> wait_for(..., 1)?
>
> > +
> > + if (allow_power_down) {
> > + val = I915_READ(LCPLL_CTL);
> > + val |= LCPLL_POWER_DOWN_ALLOW;
> > + I915_WRITE(LCPLL_CTL, val);
> > + POSTING_READ(LCPLL_CTL);
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Fully restores LCPLL, disallowing power down and switching back to LCPLL
> > + * source.
> > + */
> > +void hsw_restore_lcpll(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > +{
> > + uint32_t val;
> > +
> > + val = I915_READ(LCPLL_CTL);
> > +
>
> I think we could potentially exit early here if the PLL is already
> locked, and we're on CDclk. And indeed, I've already seen this case
> occur, but I'm not sure I will ever see that case again.
>
> > + if (val & LCPLL_POWER_DOWN_ALLOW) {
> > + val &= ~LCPLL_POWER_DOWN_ALLOW;
> > + I915_WRITE(LCPLL_CTL, val);
> > + }
> > +
> > + val = I915_READ(D_COMP);
> > + val |= D_COMP_COMP_FORCE;
> > + val &= ~D_COMP_COMP_DISABLE;
> > + I915_WRITE(D_COMP, val);
> > +
>
> I think you need a posting read here. I am not sure we're allowed to
> read LCPLL_CTL until we know the write has landed.
>
>
> > + val = I915_READ(LCPLL_CTL);
> > + val &= ~LCPLL_PLL_DISABLE;
> > + I915_WRITE(LCPLL_CTL, val);
> > + POSTING_READ(LCPLL_CTL);
> ^ unnecessary POSTING_READ - but meh
> > +
> > + if (wait_for(I915_READ(LCPLL_CTL) & LCPLL_PLL_LOCK, 5))
> > + DRM_ERROR("LCPLL not locked yet\n");
> > +
> > + if (val & LCPLL_CD_SOURCE_FCLK) {
> > + val = I915_READ(LCPLL_CTL);
> > + val &= ~LCPLL_CD_SOURCE_FCLK;
> > + I915_WRITE(LCPLL_CTL, val);
> > + POSTING_READ(LCPLL_CTL);
> > +
> > + udelay(1);
> > +
> > + val = I915_READ(LCPLL_CTL);
> > + if (val & LCPLL_CD_SOURCE_FCLK_DONE)
> > + DRM_ERROR("Switching back to LCPLL failed\n");
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
> > static void haswell_modeset_global_resources(struct drm_device *dev)
> > {
> > bool enable = false;
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> > index 5dfc1a0..15989d1 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> > @@ -832,5 +832,8 @@ extern bool intel_set_cpu_fifo_underrun_reporting(struct drm_device *dev,
> > extern bool intel_set_pch_fifo_underrun_reporting(struct drm_device *dev,
> > enum transcoder pch_transcoder,
> > bool enable);
> > +extern void hsw_disable_lcpll(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > + bool switch_to_fclk, bool allow_power_down);
> > +extern void hsw_restore_lcpll(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
> >
> > #endif /* __INTEL_DRV_H__ */
>
> I'm a bit torn as to whether or not it makes sense to extract the pure
> LCPLL disable from hsw_disable_lcpll. Did you think about this, could
> you explain the reason you decided against it? (I'm a bit partial since
> that was the way I had written it).
>
> Does it every make sense to switch to fclk and not allow_power_down?
>
> --
> Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
--
Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
