On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 01:12:49PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 12:12:18PM +0200, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 07:35:24PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 10:37:53AM +0200, Stanislav Lisovskiy wrote:
> > > > We need that in order to force disable SAGV in next patch.
> > > > Also it is beneficial to separate that code, as in majority cases,
> > > > when SAGV is enabled, we don't even need those calculations.
> > > > Also we probably need to determine max PSF GV point as well, however
> > > > currently we don't do that when we disable SAGV, which might be
> > > > actually causing some issues in that case.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Lisovskiy <stanislav.lisovskiy@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_bw.c | 82 ++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > > > 1 file changed, 65 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_bw.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_bw.c
> > > > index 583cd2ebdf89..efd408e96e8a 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_bw.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_bw.c
> > > > @@ -805,6 +805,64 @@ intel_atomic_get_bw_state(struct intel_atomic_state *state)
> > > > return to_intel_bw_state(bw_state);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > +static unsigned int icl_max_bw_qgv_point(struct drm_i915_private *i915,
> > > > + int num_active_planes)
> > > > +{
> > > > + unsigned int max_bw_point = 0;
> > > > + unsigned int max_bw = 0;
> > > > + unsigned int num_qgv_points = i915->display.bw.max[0].num_qgv_points;
> > > > + int i;
> > > > +
> > > > + for (i = 0; i < num_qgv_points; i++) {
> > > > + unsigned int idx;
> > > > + unsigned int max_data_rate;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (DISPLAY_VER(i915) > 11)
> > > > + idx = tgl_max_bw_index(i915, num_active_planes, i);
> > > > + else
> > > > + idx = icl_max_bw_index(i915, num_active_planes, i);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (idx >= ARRAY_SIZE(i915->display.bw.max))
> > > > + continue;
> > > > +
> > > > + max_data_rate = i915->display.bw.max[idx].deratedbw[i];
> > >
> > > Looks like that that part could be extracted to a helper
> > > to be used by both codepaths (would be a natural counterpart
> > > to adl_psf_bw()).
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * We need to know which qgv point gives us
> > > > + * maximum bandwidth in order to disable SAGV
> > > > + * if we find that we exceed SAGV block time
> > > > + * with watermarks. By that moment we already
> > > > + * have those, as it is calculated earlier in
> > > > + * intel_atomic_check,
> > > > + */
> > > > + if (max_data_rate > max_bw) {
> > > > + max_bw_point = i;
> > > > + max_bw = max_data_rate;
> > > > + }
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + return max_bw_point;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +unsigned int icl_max_bw_psf_gv_point(struct drm_i915_private *i915)
> > > > +{
> > > > + unsigned int num_psf_gv_points = i915->display.bw.max[0].num_psf_gv_points;
> > > > + unsigned int max_bw = 0;
> > > > + unsigned int max_bw_point = 0;
> > > > + int i;
> > > > +
> > > > + for (i = 0; i < num_psf_gv_points; i++) {
> > > > + unsigned int max_data_rate = adl_psf_bw(i915, i);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (max_data_rate > max_bw) {
> > > > + max_bw_point = i;
> > > > + max_bw = max_data_rate;
> > > > + }
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + return max_bw_point;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > static int mtl_find_qgv_points(struct drm_i915_private *i915,
> > > > unsigned int data_rate,
> > > > unsigned int num_active_planes,
> > > > @@ -882,8 +940,6 @@ static int icl_find_qgv_points(struct drm_i915_private *i915,
> > > > const struct intel_bw_state *old_bw_state,
> > > > struct intel_bw_state *new_bw_state)
> > > > {
> > > > - unsigned int max_bw_point = 0;
> > > > - unsigned int max_bw = 0;
> > > > unsigned int num_psf_gv_points = i915->display.bw.max[0].num_psf_gv_points;
> > > > unsigned int num_qgv_points = i915->display.bw.max[0].num_qgv_points;
> > > > u16 psf_points = 0;
> > > > @@ -909,18 +965,6 @@ static int icl_find_qgv_points(struct drm_i915_private *i915,
> > > >
> > > > max_data_rate = i915->display.bw.max[idx].deratedbw[i];
> > > >
> > > > - /*
> > > > - * We need to know which qgv point gives us
> > > > - * maximum bandwidth in order to disable SAGV
> > > > - * if we find that we exceed SAGV block time
> > > > - * with watermarks. By that moment we already
> > > > - * have those, as it is calculated earlier in
> > > > - * intel_atomic_check,
> > > > - */
> > > > - if (max_data_rate > max_bw) {
> > > > - max_bw_point = i;
> > > > - max_bw = max_data_rate;
> > > > - }
> > > > if (max_data_rate >= data_rate)
> > > > qgv_points |= BIT(i);
> > > >
> > > > @@ -964,9 +1008,13 @@ static int icl_find_qgv_points(struct drm_i915_private *i915,
> > > > * cause.
> > > > */
> > > > if (!intel_can_enable_sagv(i915, new_bw_state)) {
> > > > - qgv_points = BIT(max_bw_point);
> > > > - drm_dbg_kms(&i915->drm, "No SAGV, using single QGV point %d\n",
> > > > - max_bw_point);
> > > > + unsigned int max_bw_qgv_point = icl_max_bw_qgv_point(i915, num_active_planes);
> > > > + unsigned int max_bw_psf_gv_point = icl_max_bw_psf_gv_point(i915);
> > > > +
> > > > + qgv_points = BIT(max_bw_qgv_point);
> > > > + psf_points = BIT(max_bw_psf_gv_point);
> > >
> > > We didn't restrict the PSF here previously.
> >
> > Yep, but I really suspect we should. BSpec states that we should restrict all the GV points
> > except highest one, also that some PSF GV points aren't same or usable, depending on BW reqs.
> > So I would restrict that as well, in case if SAGV is off, just to be on safe side.
>
> Pretty sure it's explicitly noted that PSF doesn't cause issues with
> latency and hence doesn't need this.
>
> In any case, a change like this has no business being in a patch
> that's just supposed to refactor code.
Ok, lets drop this, until clarified.
Stan
>
> --
> Ville Syrjälä
> Intel
