On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 06:31:23PM +0530, Deepak S wrote:
>
>
> On Friday 10 April 2015 08:51 PM, ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Not sure which LDO programming sequence delay should be used for the CHV
> > PHY, but the spec says that 600ns is "Used by default for initial
> > bringup", and the BIOS seems to use that, so let's do the same.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h | 4 ++++
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.c | 2 ++
> > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
> > index 98588d5..977bad6 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
> > @@ -1887,6 +1887,10 @@ enum skl_disp_power_wells {
> > #define DPIO_PHY_STATUS (VLV_DISPLAY_BASE + 0x6240)
> > #define DPLL_PORTD_READY_MASK (0xf)
> > #define DISPLAY_PHY_CONTROL (VLV_DISPLAY_BASE + 0x60100)
> > +#define PHY_LDO_DELAY_0NS 0x0
> > +#define PHY_LDO_DELAY_200NS 0x1
>
> PHY_LDO_DELAY_0NS & PHY_LDO_DELAY_200NS not used right?
> Should we keep the definitions?
I generally like to keep a bit of extra for VLV/CHV due to the bad doc
situation.
>
> > +#define PHY_LDO_DELAY_600NS 0x2
> > +#define PHY_LDO_SEQ_DELAY(delay, phy) ((delay) << (2*(phy)+23))
> > #define PHY_CH_SU_PSR 0x1
> > #define PHY_CH_DEEP_PSR 0x7
> > #define PHY_CH_POWER_MODE(mode, phy, ch) ((mode) << (6*(phy)+3*(ch)+2))
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.c
> > index 1f800f8..5cd8a51 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.c
> > @@ -1406,6 +1406,8 @@ static void chv_phy_control_init(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > * value.
> > */
> > dev_priv->chv_phy_control =
> > + PHY_LDO_SEQ_DELAY(PHY_LDO_DELAY_600NS, DPIO_PHY0) |
> > + PHY_LDO_SEQ_DELAY(PHY_LDO_DELAY_600NS, DPIO_PHY1) |
> > PHY_CH_POWER_MODE(PHY_CH_SU_PSR, DPIO_PHY0, DPIO_CH0) |
> > PHY_CH_POWER_MODE(PHY_CH_SU_PSR, DPIO_PHY0, DPIO_CH1) |
> > PHY_CH_POWER_MODE(PHY_CH_SU_PSR, DPIO_PHY1, DPIO_CH0);
>
> I think we need to squash this patch to previous one?
> [PATCH 1/7] drm/i915: Implement chv display PHY lane stagger setup
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/intel-gfx/msg64481.html
Well, IIRC I never saw any real issues with the 0ns delay either, with
or without the lane stagger setup. So not much point in squashing IMO.
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
