On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:10:07PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 01:55:22PM +0200, Patrik Jakobsson wrote:
> > We need to be able to control if DC6 is allowed or not. Much like
> > requesting power to a specific piece of the hardware we need to be able
> > to request that we don't enter DC6 during certain hw access.
> >
> > To solve this without introducing too much infrastructure I'm hooking
> > into the power well / power domain framework. DC6 prevention is modeled
> > much like an enabled power well. Thus I'm using the terminology on/off
> > for DC states instead of enable/disable.
> >
> > The problem that started this work is the need for DC6 to be disabled
> > when accessing DP_AUX_A during CRTC on/off. That is also fixed in this
> > patch.
> >
> > This is posted as an RFC since DMC and DC state handling is being
> > reworked and will possibly affect the outcome of this patch. The patch
> > has known warnings.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Patrik Jakobsson <patrik.jakobsson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c | 9 +++++
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h | 2 +
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> > 3 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c
> > index 4823184..c2c1ad2 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c
> > @@ -2288,6 +2288,8 @@ static void intel_ddi_pre_enable(struct intel_encoder *intel_encoder)
> > if (type == INTEL_OUTPUT_DISPLAYPORT || type == INTEL_OUTPUT_EDP) {
> > struct intel_dp *intel_dp = enc_to_intel_dp(encoder);
> >
> > + intel_display_power_get(dev_priv, POWER_DOMAIN_AUX_A);
> > +
>
> These I think shouldn't be necessary with my
> intel_display_port_aux_power_domain() stuff since intel_dp_aux_ch() will
> itself grab the appropriate power domain.
>
> That's of course assuming that AUX is the only reason why we need to
> keep DC6 disabled here.
>
The upside with having get/put around bigger aux transfers is that we don't get
tons of enable/disable lines in the log. My vote is that we keep this but also
have your fine-grained get/puts.
We also have an extra enable disable print in skl_disable_dc6() /
skl_enable_dc6() which I think should be removed unless various DC on/off hacks
are required outside of the power wells framework.
> > intel_dp_set_link_params(intel_dp, crtc->config);
> >
> > intel_ddi_init_dp_buf_reg(intel_encoder);
> > @@ -2297,6 +2299,8 @@ static void intel_ddi_pre_enable(struct intel_encoder *intel_encoder)
> > intel_dp_complete_link_train(intel_dp);
> > if (port != PORT_A || INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen >= 9)
> > intel_dp_stop_link_train(intel_dp);
> > +
> > + intel_display_power_put(dev_priv, POWER_DOMAIN_AUX_A);
> > } else if (type == INTEL_OUTPUT_HDMI) {
> > struct intel_hdmi *intel_hdmi = enc_to_intel_hdmi(encoder);
> >
> > @@ -2339,9 +2343,14 @@ static void intel_ddi_post_disable(struct intel_encoder *intel_encoder)
> >
> > if (type == INTEL_OUTPUT_DISPLAYPORT || type == INTEL_OUTPUT_EDP) {
> > struct intel_dp *intel_dp = enc_to_intel_dp(encoder);
> > +
> > + intel_display_power_get(dev_priv, POWER_DOMAIN_AUX_A);
> > +
> > intel_dp_sink_dpms(intel_dp, DRM_MODE_DPMS_OFF);
> > intel_edp_panel_vdd_on(intel_dp);
> > intel_edp_panel_off(intel_dp);
> > +
> > + intel_display_power_put(dev_priv, POWER_DOMAIN_AUX_A);
> > }
> >
> > if (IS_SKYLAKE(dev))
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> > index 46484e4..82489ad 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> > @@ -1367,6 +1367,8 @@ void chv_phy_powergate_lanes(struct intel_encoder *encoder,
> > bool override, unsigned int mask);
> > bool chv_phy_powergate_ch(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, enum dpio_phy phy,
> > enum dpio_channel ch, bool override);
> > +void skl_enable_dc6(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
> > +void skl_disable_dc6(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
> >
> >
> > /* intel_pm.c */
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.c
> > index 3f682a1..e30c9a6 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.c
> > @@ -335,6 +335,10 @@ static void hsw_set_power_well(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > SKL_DISPLAY_POWERWELL_1_POWER_DOMAINS | \
> > BIT(POWER_DOMAIN_PLLS) | \
> > BIT(POWER_DOMAIN_INIT))
> > +#define SKL_DISPLAY_DC6_OFF_POWER_DOMAINS ( \
> > + SKL_DISPLAY_POWERWELL_2_POWER_DOMAINS | \
> > + BIT(POWER_DOMAIN_AUX_A))
> > +
> > #define SKL_DISPLAY_ALWAYS_ON_POWER_DOMAINS ( \
> > (POWER_DOMAIN_MASK & ~(SKL_DISPLAY_POWERWELL_1_POWER_DOMAINS | \
> > SKL_DISPLAY_POWERWELL_2_POWER_DOMAINS | \
> > @@ -550,7 +554,7 @@ static void assert_can_disable_dc6(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > "DC6 already programmed to be disabled.\n");
> > }
> >
> > -static void skl_enable_dc6(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > +void skl_enable_dc6(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > {
> > uint32_t val;
> >
> > @@ -567,7 +571,7 @@ static void skl_enable_dc6(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > POSTING_READ(DC_STATE_EN);
> > }
> >
> > -static void skl_disable_dc6(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > +void skl_disable_dc6(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > {
> > uint32_t val;
> >
> > @@ -628,10 +632,8 @@ static void skl_set_power_well(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > !I915_READ(HSW_PWR_WELL_BIOS),
> > "Invalid for power well status to be enabled, unless done by the BIOS, \
> > when request is to disable!\n");
> > - if ((GEN9_ENABLE_DC5(dev) || SKL_ENABLE_DC6(dev)) &&
> > - power_well->data == SKL_DISP_PW_2) {
> > + if (power_well->data == SKL_DISP_PW_2) {
> > if (SKL_ENABLE_DC6(dev)) {
> > - skl_disable_dc6(dev_priv);
>
> Hmm. So the ordering needs to be
> disable dc6 -> enable pw2
I don't know why DC6 is required for PW2 and at this point I don't see why the
ordering should matter. Could you please explain?
> > /*
> > * DDI buffer programming unnecessary during driver-load/resume
> > * as it's already done during modeset initialization then.
> > @@ -639,10 +641,9 @@ static void skl_set_power_well(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > */
> > if (!dev_priv->power_domains.initializing)
> > intel_prepare_ddi(dev);
> > - } else {
> > - gen9_disable_dc5(dev_priv);
> > }
> > }
> > +
> > I915_WRITE(HSW_PWR_WELL_DRIVER, tmp | req_mask);
> > }
> >
> > @@ -660,8 +661,7 @@ static void skl_set_power_well(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > POSTING_READ(HSW_PWR_WELL_DRIVER);
> > DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Disabling %s\n", power_well->name);
> >
> > - if ((GEN9_ENABLE_DC5(dev) || SKL_ENABLE_DC6(dev)) &&
> > - power_well->data == SKL_DISP_PW_2) {
> > + if (power_well->data == SKL_DISP_PW_2) {
> > enum csr_state state;
> > /* TODO: wait for a completion event or
> > * similar here instead of busy
> > @@ -669,14 +669,10 @@ static void skl_set_power_well(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > */
> > wait_for((state = intel_csr_load_status_get(dev_priv)) !=
> > FW_UNINITIALIZED, 1000);
> > - if (state != FW_LOADED)
> > + if (state != FW_LOADED) {
> > DRM_ERROR("CSR firmware not ready (%d)\n",
> > - state);
> > - else
> > - if (SKL_ENABLE_DC6(dev))
> > - skl_enable_dc6(dev_priv);
> > - else
> > - gen9_enable_dc5(dev_priv);
> > + state);
> > + }
>
> and here we need
> disable pw2 -> enable dc6
>
> That's symmetric which is great for using power wells here since we walk
> the power wells array forward when enabling, and backwards when
> disabling.
>
> I'm thinking that we could also move the dc5 stuff into a power well.
> Would reduce the clutter in skl_set_power_well() at least. I'm not sure
> what the requirements wrt. dc5 are. If they are the same as for dc6,
> then a single dc power well would do, otherwise we would need two, each
> with its own domains.
>From what I've heard we don't need to care about DC5 atm. But I also think that
a power well for DC5 is the way to go. Need to check with Damien what the
requirements for DC5 are.
> > }
> > }
> > }
> > @@ -752,6 +748,34 @@ static void skl_power_well_disable(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > skl_set_power_well(dev_priv, power_well, false);
> > }
> >
> > +static bool skl_dc6_state_enabled(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > + struct i915_power_well *power_well)
> > +{
> > + /* Return true if disabling of DC6 is enabled */
> > + return !(I915_READ(DC_STATE_EN) & DC_STATE_EN_UPTO_DC6);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void skl_dc6_state_on(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > + struct i915_power_well *power_well)
> > +{
> > + skl_enable_dc6(dev_priv);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void skl_dc6_state_off(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > + struct i915_power_well *power_well)
> > +{
> > + skl_disable_dc6(dev_priv);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void skl_dc6_sync_hw(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > + struct i915_power_well *power_well)
> > +{
> > + if (power_well->count > 0)
> > + skl_disable_dc6(dev_priv);
> > + else
> > + skl_enable_dc6(dev_priv);
> > +}
>
> Nit: Looks like we usuall have these in the following order
> sync_hw
> enable
> disable
>
> 'enabled' is a bit all over the place usually. I guess before or after the
> rest is fine.
Yes, better keep the current order.
> I'm not really sure how I would name these. The current naming doesn't
> really tell me they're power well ops. Maybe
> skl_dc6_off_power_well_{enable,disable,sync_hw,enabled}() ?
I agree, better make it clear that they are pw ops.
> > +
> > static void i9xx_always_on_power_well_noop(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > struct i915_power_well *power_well)
> > {
> > @@ -1546,6 +1570,14 @@ static const struct i915_power_well_ops skl_power_well_ops = {
> > .is_enabled = skl_power_well_enabled,
> > };
> >
> > +static const struct i915_power_well_ops skl_dc_state_ops = {
>
> _dc6_, and naming to match how the function are finally named of
> course.
>
> > + .sync_hw = skl_dc6_sync_hw,
> > + /* To enable power we turn the DC state off */
> > + .enable = skl_dc6_state_off,
> > + .disable = skl_dc6_state_on,
> > + .is_enabled = skl_dc6_state_enabled,
> > +};
> > +
> > static struct i915_power_well hsw_power_wells[] = {
> > {
> > .name = "always-on",
> > @@ -1745,6 +1777,11 @@ static struct i915_power_well skl_power_wells[] = {
> > .ops = &skl_power_well_ops,
> > .data = SKL_DISP_PW_DDI_D,
> > },
> > + {
> > + .name = "DC6 state off",
>
> Just "DC6 off" perhaps?
>
> I wasn't able to think of a nice way to name this so that it would make
> more sense in the logs. With this we would get
> 'enabling DC6 off' and 'disabling DC6 off' which is a bit confusing.
> Maybe we should at least put quotes around the power well name in the
> debug message to make it a bit less funky? Probably not worth it to
> add support for sully customized enable/disable log message.
Agreed
> > + .domains = SKL_DISPLAY_DC6_OFF_POWER_DOMAINS,
> > + .ops = &skl_power_well_ops,
>
> Surely you want to use the new ops you created? :)
Oops :)
> And here we need to be careful where in the list we insert the power
> well. Based on what we saw earlier, the right place should be just
> before PW2. That way DC6 gets disabled before PW2 is enabled, and
> PW2 gets disabled before DC6 gets enabled.
Yes, regardless of the ordering requirements it makes sense to move it up.
Thanks for having a look
-Patrik
> > + },
> > };
> >
> > static struct i915_power_well bxt_power_wells[] = {
> > --
> > 2.1.4
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Intel-gfx mailing list
> > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
>
> --
> Ville Syrjälä
> Intel OTC
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
