On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:11:20AM +0530, Vandana Kannan wrote:
> On Jun-17-2014 10:12 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 05:52:24PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >> On Mon, 16 Jun 2014, Vandana Kannan <vandana.kannan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> On Jun-13-2014 7:42 PM, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 22 May 2014, Vandana Kannan <vandana.kannan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>> Adding relevant read out comparison code, in check_crtc_state, for the new
> >>>>> member of crtc_config, dp_m2_n2, which was introduced to store link_m_n
> >>>>> values for a DP downclock mode (if available). Suggested by Daniel.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> v2: Changed patch title.
> >>>>> Daniel's review comments incorporated.
> >>>>> Added relevant state readout code for M2_N2. dp_m2_n2 comparison to be done
> >>>>> only when high RR is not in use (This is because alternate m_n register
> >>>>> programming will be done only when low RR is being used).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> v3: Modified call to get_m2_n2 which had dp_m_n as param by mistake.
> >>>>> Compare dp_m_n and dp_m2_n2 for gen 7 and below. compare the structures
> >>>>> based on DRRS state for gen 8 and above.
> >>>>> Save and restore M2 N2 registers for gen 7 and below
> >>>>>
> >>>>> v4: For Gen>=8, check M_N registers against dp_m_n and dp_m2_n2 as there is
> >>>>> only one set of M_N registers
> >>>>>
> >>>>> v5: Removed the chunk which saves and restores M2_N2 registers. Modified
> >>>>> get_m_n() to get M2_N2 registers as well. Modified the macro which compares
> >>>>> hw.dp_m_n against sw.dp_m2_n2/sw.dp_m_n for gen > 8.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Vandana Kannan <vandana.kannan@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 68 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> >>>>> 1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> >>>>> index cf3ad87..d593897 100644
> >>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> >>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> >>>>> @@ -6945,7 +6945,8 @@ static void intel_pch_transcoder_get_m_n(struct intel_crtc *crtc,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> static void intel_cpu_transcoder_get_m_n(struct intel_crtc *crtc,
> >>>>> enum transcoder transcoder,
> >>>>> - struct intel_link_m_n *m_n)
> >>>>> + struct intel_link_m_n *m_n,
> >>>>> + struct intel_link_m_n *m2_n2)
> >>>>> {
> >>>>> struct drm_device *dev = crtc->base.dev;
> >>>>> struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
> >>>>> @@ -6959,6 +6960,15 @@ static void intel_cpu_transcoder_get_m_n(struct intel_crtc *crtc,
> >>>>> m_n->gmch_n = I915_READ(PIPE_DATA_N1(transcoder));
> >>>>> m_n->tu = ((I915_READ(PIPE_DATA_M1(transcoder))
> >>>>> & TU_SIZE_MASK) >> TU_SIZE_SHIFT) + 1;
> >>>>> + if (m2_n2 && INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen < 8) {
> >>>>> + m2_n2->link_m = I915_READ(PIPE_LINK_M2(transcoder));
> >>>>> + m2_n2->link_n = I915_READ(PIPE_LINK_N2(transcoder));
> >>>>> + m2_n2->gmch_m = I915_READ(PIPE_DATA_M2(transcoder))
> >>>>> + & ~TU_SIZE_MASK;
> >>>>> + m2_n2->gmch_n = I915_READ(PIPE_DATA_N2(transcoder));
> >>>>> + m2_n2->tu = ((I915_READ(PIPE_DATA_M2(transcoder))
> >>>>> + & TU_SIZE_MASK) >> TU_SIZE_SHIFT) + 1;
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>> } else {
> >>>>> m_n->link_m = I915_READ(PIPE_LINK_M_G4X(pipe));
> >>>>> m_n->link_n = I915_READ(PIPE_LINK_N_G4X(pipe));
> >>>>> @@ -6977,14 +6987,15 @@ void intel_dp_get_m_n(struct intel_crtc *crtc,
> >>>>> intel_pch_transcoder_get_m_n(crtc, &pipe_config->dp_m_n);
> >>>>> else
> >>>>> intel_cpu_transcoder_get_m_n(crtc, pipe_config->cpu_transcoder,
> >>>>> - &pipe_config->dp_m_n);
> >>>>> + &pipe_config->dp_m_n,
> >>>>> + &pipe_config->dp_m2_n2);
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> static void ironlake_get_fdi_m_n_config(struct intel_crtc *crtc,
> >>>>> struct intel_crtc_config *pipe_config)
> >>>>> {
> >>>>> intel_cpu_transcoder_get_m_n(crtc, pipe_config->cpu_transcoder,
> >>>>> - &pipe_config->fdi_m_n);
> >>>>> + &pipe_config->fdi_m_n, NULL);
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> static void ironlake_get_pfit_config(struct intel_crtc *crtc,
> >>>>> @@ -9485,6 +9496,15 @@ static void intel_dump_pipe_config(struct intel_crtc *crtc,
> >>>>> pipe_config->dp_m_n.gmch_m, pipe_config->dp_m_n.gmch_n,
> >>>>> pipe_config->dp_m_n.link_m, pipe_config->dp_m_n.link_n,
> >>>>> pipe_config->dp_m_n.tu);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("dp: %i, gmch_m2: %u, gmch_n2: %u, link_m2: %u, link_n2: %u, tu2: %u\n",
> >>>>> + pipe_config->has_dp_encoder,
> >>>>> + pipe_config->dp_m2_n2.gmch_m,
> >>>>> + pipe_config->dp_m2_n2.gmch_n,
> >>>>> + pipe_config->dp_m2_n2.link_m,
> >>>>> + pipe_config->dp_m2_n2.link_n,
> >>>>> + pipe_config->dp_m2_n2.tu);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> DRM_DEBUG_KMS("requested mode:\n");
> >>>>> drm_mode_debug_printmodeline(&pipe_config->requested_mode);
> >>>>> DRM_DEBUG_KMS("adjusted mode:\n");
> >>>>> @@ -9867,6 +9887,22 @@ intel_pipe_config_compare(struct drm_device *dev,
> >>>>> return false; \
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +/* This is required for BDW+ where there is only one set of registers for
> >>>>> + * switching between high and low RR.
> >>>>> + * This macro can be used whenever a comparison has to be made between one
> >>>>> + * hw state and multiple sw state variables.
> >>>>> + */
> >>>>> +#define PIPE_CONF_CHECK_I_ALT(name, alt_name) \
> >>>>> + if ((current_config->name != pipe_config->name) && \
> >>>>> + (current_config->alt_name != pipe_config->name)) { \
> >>>>> + DRM_ERROR("mismatch in " #name " " \
> >>>>> + "(expected %i or %i, found %i)\n", \
> >>>>> + current_config->name, \
> >>>>> + current_config->alt_name, \
> >>>>> + pipe_config->name); \
> >>>>> + return false; \
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> #define PIPE_CONF_CHECK_FLAGS(name, mask) \
> >>>>> if ((current_config->name ^ pipe_config->name) & (mask)) { \
> >>>>> DRM_ERROR("mismatch in " #name "(" #mask ") " \
> >>>>> @@ -9899,11 +9935,26 @@ intel_pipe_config_compare(struct drm_device *dev,
> >>>>> PIPE_CONF_CHECK_I(fdi_m_n.tu);
> >>>>>
> >>>>> PIPE_CONF_CHECK_I(has_dp_encoder);
> >>>>> - PIPE_CONF_CHECK_I(dp_m_n.gmch_m);
> >>>>> - PIPE_CONF_CHECK_I(dp_m_n.gmch_n);
> >>>>> - PIPE_CONF_CHECK_I(dp_m_n.link_m);
> >>>>> - PIPE_CONF_CHECK_I(dp_m_n.link_n);
> >>>>> - PIPE_CONF_CHECK_I(dp_m_n.tu);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen < 8) {
> >>>>> + PIPE_CONF_CHECK_I(dp_m_n.gmch_m);
> >>>>> + PIPE_CONF_CHECK_I(dp_m_n.gmch_n);
> >>>>> + PIPE_CONF_CHECK_I(dp_m_n.link_m);
> >>>>> + PIPE_CONF_CHECK_I(dp_m_n.link_n);
> >>>>> + PIPE_CONF_CHECK_I(dp_m_n.tu);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + PIPE_CONF_CHECK_I(dp_m2_n2.gmch_m);
> >>>>> + PIPE_CONF_CHECK_I(dp_m2_n2.gmch_n);
> >>>>> + PIPE_CONF_CHECK_I(dp_m2_n2.link_m);
> >>>>> + PIPE_CONF_CHECK_I(dp_m2_n2.link_n);
> >>>>> + PIPE_CONF_CHECK_I(dp_m2_n2.tu);
> >>>>> + } else {
> >>>>> + PIPE_CONF_CHECK_I_ALT(dp_m_n.gmch_m, dp_m2_n2.gmch_m);
> >>>>> + PIPE_CONF_CHECK_I_ALT(dp_m_n.gmch_n, dp_m2_n2.gmch_n);
> >>>>> + PIPE_CONF_CHECK_I_ALT(dp_m_n.link_m, dp_m2_n2.link_m);
> >>>>> + PIPE_CONF_CHECK_I_ALT(dp_m_n.link_n, dp_m2_n2.link_n);
> >>>>> + PIPE_CONF_CHECK_I_ALT(dp_m_n.tu, dp_m2_n2.tu);
> >>>>
> >>>> If there's no downclock mode (e.g. because it's not eDP), this now
> >>>> accepts register value 0 as okay for each state check. That's not cool.
> >>>>
> >>>> Perhaps drrs state should be part of pipe config.
> >>>>
> >>>> BR,
> >>>> Jani.
> >>>>
> >>> Ok, shall I go ahead with the following approach?
> >>>
> >>> pipe_config{
> >>> drrs_state;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> in pipe_config_compare() {
> >>> if gen < 8 {
> >>> compare dp_m1_n1
> >>> if drrs_state == seamless
> >>> compare hw.dp_m2_n2 and sw.dp_m2_n2
> >>> /* this drrs_state would be set only in edp_init_connector and only when
> >>> a downclock_mode is found */
> >>> }
> >>> else
> >>> compare hw.dp_m_n and sw.dp_m_n or sw.dp_m2_n2
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> drrs_state is stored in vbt struct and intel_dp as of now. some changes
> >>> would be required around this to avoid saving this state at a third
> >>> place (pipe_config).
> >>> option 1. move drrs_state from intel_dp to dev_priv.
> >>> option 2. move drrs_state from intel_dp to pipe_config.
> >>>
> >>> with the above changes, the patches accessing intel_dp->drrs_state would
> >>> require changes.
> >>>
> >>> Please let me know your inputs on this.
> >>
> >> Daniel, any further thoughts on this? What fits best with future work?
> >> Or go ahead with the patch as-is, even though it has the corner case?
> >
> > I think we should have a flag that says whether the 2nd set of regs is
> > valid, then only use those if that's set. So amounts to adding a static
> > copy to pipe_config, e.g. config.has_drrs -> 2nd set of values is valid.
> >
> I had introduced HAS_DRRS(dev) in patch#1 of this 2-patch series. I
> could use that along with intel_crtc->config.has_dp_encoder check to
> proceed with dp_m2_n2 comparison.
> What are you thoughts on this?
Yeah, makes sense.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
