On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 04:24:30PM -0800, Matt Roper wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 03:56:23PM -0800, Srivatsa, Anusha wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Roper, Matthew D <matthew.d.roper@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2022 3:43 PM
> > > To: Srivatsa, Anusha <anusha.srivatsa@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Vivekanandan, Balasubramani
> > > <balasubramani.vivekanandan@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/display: Do both crawl and
> > > squash when changing cdclk
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 03:26:41PM -0700, Anusha Srivatsa wrote:
> > > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > For MTL, changing cdclk from between certain frequencies has both
> > > > squash and crawl. Use the current cdclk config and the new(desired)
> > > > cdclk config to construtc a mid cdclk config.
> > > > Set the cdclk twice:
> > > > - Current cdclk -> mid cdclk
> > > > - mid cdclk -> desired cdclk
> > > >
> > > > v2: Add check in intel_modeset_calc_cdclk() to avoid cdclk change via
> > > > modeset for platforms that support squash_crawl sequences(Ville)
> > > >
> > > > v3: Add checks for:
> > > > - scenario where only slow clock is used and cdclk is actually 0
> > > > (bringing up display).
> > > > - PLLs are on before looking up the waveform.
> > > > - Squash and crawl capability checks.(Ville)
> > > >
> > > > v4: Rebase
> > > > - Move checks to be more consistent (Ville)
> > > > - Add comments (Bala)
> > > > v5:
> > > > - Further small changes. Move checks around.
> > > > - Make if-else better looking (Ville)
> > > >
> > > > v6: MTl should not follow PUnit mailbox communication as the rest of
> > > > gen11+ platforms.(Anusha)
> > > >
> > > > Cc: Clint Taylor <Clinton.A.Taylor@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Cc: Balasubramani Vivekanandan
> > > <balasubramani.vivekanandan@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Anusha Srivatsa <anusha.srivatsa@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_cdclk.c | 161
> > > > +++++++++++++++++----
> > > > 1 file changed, 133 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_cdclk.c
> > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_cdclk.c
> > > > index eada931cb1c8..d1e0763513be 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_cdclk.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_cdclk.c
> > > > @@ -1716,37 +1716,74 @@ static void dg2_cdclk_squash_program(struct
> > > drm_i915_private *i915,
> > > > intel_de_write(i915, CDCLK_SQUASH_CTL, squash_ctl); }
> > > >
> > > > -static void bxt_set_cdclk(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > > > - const struct intel_cdclk_config *cdclk_config,
> > > > - enum pipe pipe)
> > > > +static int cdclk_squash_divider(u16 waveform) {
> > > > + return hweight16(waveform ?: 0xffff); }
> > > > +
> > > > +static bool cdclk_crawl_and_squash(struct drm_i915_private *i915,
> > >
> > > Bikeshed: maybe name this "cdclk_compute_crawl_squash_midpoint" to
> > > help clarify that we're just computing stuff here and not actually
> > > programming the hardware in this function?
> > >
> > > That naming would also help clarify why we're returning false if we crawl but
> > > don't squash or vice versa (i.e., there's no midpoint in those cases).
> >
> > Makes sense.
> >
> > > > + const struct intel_cdclk_config
> > > *old_cdclk_config,
> > > > + const struct intel_cdclk_config
> > > *new_cdclk_config,
> > > > + struct intel_cdclk_config *mid_cdclk_config)
> > > {
> > > > + u16 old_waveform, new_waveform, mid_waveform;
> > > > + int size = 16;
> > > > + int div = 2;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Return if both Squash and Crawl are not present */
> > > > + if (!HAS_CDCLK_CRAWL(i915) || !HAS_CDCLK_SQUASH(i915))
> > > > + return false;
> > > > +
> > > > + old_waveform = cdclk_squash_waveform(i915, old_cdclk_config-
> > > >cdclk);
> > > > + new_waveform = cdclk_squash_waveform(i915, new_cdclk_config-
> > > >cdclk);
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Return if Squash only or Crawl only is the desired action */
> > > > + if (old_cdclk_config->vco <= 0 || new_cdclk_config->vco <= 0 ||
> > >
> > > Isn't vco unsigned? "== 0" should be fine here I think.
> >
> > You mean the new_cdclk_config->vco right?
>
> Both of them I think. The vco field of intel_cdclk_config can't take on
> negative values because it's defined as unsigned:
>
> struct intel_cdclk_config {
> unsigned int cdclk, vco, ref, bypass;
> u8 voltage_level;
> };
Hmm. I guess I used the vco=-1 in sanitize() as a way to
effectively write vco=~0, the point of which was force the
PLL to be fully disabled first regardless of what its
current state is.
But now that I look at that we might have an issue with
platforms that support crawling. We wrote that code as if
vco is signed so it's actually going to take the crawl
path now that it looks like the PLL was prevsiously on.
I think we need to add an explicit check to not do
the crawl for the vco=~0/-1 case...
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
