On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 06:10:25PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 06:04:27PM +0200, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 04:36:00PM +0200, Ville Syrjala wrote:
> > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Reorganize the crtc disable path to only deal with the
> > > master pipes/transcoders in intel_old_crtc_state_disables()
> > > and offload the handling of joined pipes to hsw_crtc_disable().
> > > This makes the whole thing much more sensible since we can
> > > actually control the order in which we do the per-pipe vs.
> > > per-transcoder modeset steps.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c | 64 ++++++++++++--------
> > > 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> > > index 1df3923cc30d..07239c1ce9df 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> > > @@ -1793,29 +1793,27 @@ static void hsw_crtc_disable(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
> > > const struct intel_crtc_state *old_master_crtc_state =
> > > intel_atomic_get_old_crtc_state(state, master_crtc);
> > > struct drm_i915_private *i915 = to_i915(master_crtc->base.dev);
> > > + u8 pipe_mask = intel_crtc_joined_pipe_mask(old_master_crtc_state);
> > > + struct intel_crtc *crtc;
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * FIXME collapse everything to one hook.
> > > * Need care with mst->ddi interactions.
> > > */
> > > - if (!intel_crtc_is_bigjoiner_slave(old_master_crtc_state)) {
> > > - intel_encoders_disable(state, master_crtc);
> > > - intel_encoders_post_disable(state, master_crtc);
> > > - }
> > > -
> > > - intel_disable_shared_dpll(old_master_crtc_state);
> > > + intel_encoders_disable(state, master_crtc);
> > > + intel_encoders_post_disable(state, master_crtc);
> > >
> > > - if (!intel_crtc_is_bigjoiner_slave(old_master_crtc_state)) {
> > > - struct intel_crtc *slave_crtc;
> > > + for_each_intel_crtc_in_pipe_mask(&i915->drm, crtc, pipe_mask) {
> > > + const struct intel_crtc_state *old_crtc_state =
> > > + intel_atomic_get_old_crtc_state(state, crtc);
> > >
> > > - intel_encoders_post_pll_disable(state, master_crtc);
> > > + intel_disable_shared_dpll(old_crtc_state);
> > > + }
> > >
> > > - intel_dmc_disable_pipe(i915, master_crtc->pipe);
> > > + intel_encoders_post_pll_disable(state, master_crtc);
> > >
> > > - for_each_intel_crtc_in_pipe_mask(&i915->drm, slave_crtc,
> > > - intel_crtc_bigjoiner_slave_pipes(old_master_crtc_state))
> > > - intel_dmc_disable_pipe(i915, slave_crtc->pipe);
> > > - }
> > > + for_each_intel_crtc_in_pipe_mask(&i915->drm, crtc, pipe_mask)
> > > + intel_dmc_disable_pipe(i915, crtc->pipe);
> > > }
> >
> > Okay the only difference from hsw_crtc_disable part from my patch is that
> > I don't have intel_crtc_joined_pipe_mask and encoder calls are outside the pipe
> > loop. Ok. You could of course just communicate this to me, it is quite a small
> > thing to change.
> >
> > And still there is a question about how to handle the crtc enable side, since
> > extracting transcoder programming from the pipe loop, will break the sequence,
> > as I described. Either it is ok that we will partly program slave/master pipe, then
> > program transcoder then again program slave/master pipes or it has to be
> > in a pipe loop.
>
> Transcoder stuff shouldn't be in pipe loops. That's what
> I've been saying all along.
Yep, I realize you kept saying this and I described you the problem what happens if
we extract it from there.
Either it is ok to have 2 loops and have transcoder programming in between or you
first program pipes then program the transcoder - in both cases that would change
the sequence of how it is done now.
My question was if this is ok or not.
Stan
>
> --
> Ville Syrjälä
> Intel
