On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 05:22:41PM +0200, Chi Ding wrote:
> From: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> This commit saves watermark for each plane in vlv_wm_state to prepare
> for two-level watermark because we'll compute and save intermediate and
> optimal watermark and fifo size for each plane.
>
> Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Chi Ding <chix.ding@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h | 12 +----
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 111 +++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> 2 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 62 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> index b973b86..31118e1 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> @@ -624,6 +624,7 @@ struct intel_crtc_state {
> struct vlv_wm_state {
> struct vlv_pipe_wm wm[3];
> struct vlv_sr_wm sr[3];
> + uint16_t fifo_size[I915_MAX_PLANES];
> uint8_t num_active_planes;
> uint8_t num_levels;
> uint8_t level;
> @@ -696,10 +697,6 @@ struct intel_crtc {
> struct vlv_wm_state wm_state;
> };
>
> -struct intel_plane_wm_parameters {
> - uint16_t fifo_size;
> -};
> -
> struct intel_plane {
> struct drm_plane base;
> int plane;
> @@ -708,13 +705,6 @@ struct intel_plane {
> int max_downscale;
> uint32_t frontbuffer_bit;
>
> - /* Since we need to change the watermarks before/after
> - * enabling/disabling the planes, we need to store the parameters here
> - * as the other pieces of the struct may not reflect the values we want
> - * for the watermark calculations. Currently only Haswell uses this.
> - */
> - struct intel_plane_wm_parameters wm;
> -
> /*
> * NOTE: Do not place new plane state fields here (e.g., when adding
> * new plane properties). New runtime state should now be placed in
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> index a3942df..33f52ae 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> @@ -983,14 +983,16 @@ static uint16_t vlv_compute_wm_level(struct intel_plane *plane,
> return min_t(int, wm, USHRT_MAX);
> }
>
> -static void vlv_compute_fifo(struct intel_crtc *crtc)
> +static void vlv_compute_fifo(struct intel_crtc *crtc,
> + struct vlv_wm_state *wm_state)
> {
> struct drm_device *dev = crtc->base.dev;
> - struct vlv_wm_state *wm_state = &crtc->wm_state;
> struct intel_plane *plane;
> unsigned int total_rate = 0;
> const int fifo_size = 512 - 1;
> int fifo_extra, fifo_left = fifo_size;
> + int rate[I915_MAX_PLANES] = {};
I think this syntax might cause a warning on some versions of GCC (iirc,
empty braces are technically illegal in the C spec, but legal in C++).
I believe providing the value of the first element will avoid the
warning (and still initialize all entries to 0); i.e.,
int rate[I915_MAX_PLANES] = { 0 };
> + int i;
>
> for_each_intel_plane_on_crtc(dev, crtc, plane) {
> struct intel_plane_state *state =
> @@ -1001,58 +1003,55 @@ static void vlv_compute_fifo(struct intel_crtc *crtc)
>
> if (state->visible) {
> wm_state->num_active_planes++;
> - total_rate += drm_format_plane_cpp(state->base.fb->pixel_format, 0);
> + rate[wm_plane_id(plane)] =
> + drm_format_plane_cpp(state->base.fb->pixel_format, 0);
> + total_rate += rate[wm_plane_id(plane)];
> }
> }
>
> - for_each_intel_plane_on_crtc(dev, crtc, plane) {
> - struct intel_plane_state *state =
> - to_intel_plane_state(plane->base.state);
> - unsigned int rate;
> -
> - if (plane->base.type == DRM_PLANE_TYPE_CURSOR) {
> - plane->wm.fifo_size = 63;
> + for (i = 0; i < I915_MAX_PLANES; i++) {
Is there a specific reason to change from iterating over planes to
iterating over indices here? I think the end result is the same either
way as far as I can see? (Assuming you could just set
i = wm_plane_id(plane) like you did in the first loop if you kept the
original loop).
> + if (i == PLANE_CURSOR) {
> + wm_state->fifo_size[i] = 63;
> continue;
> }
>
> - if (!state->visible) {
> - plane->wm.fifo_size = 0;
> + if (!rate[i]) {
> + wm_state->fifo_size[i] = 0;
> continue;
> }
>
> - rate = drm_format_plane_cpp(state->base.fb->pixel_format, 0);
> - plane->wm.fifo_size = fifo_size * rate / total_rate;
> - fifo_left -= plane->wm.fifo_size;
> + wm_state->fifo_size[i] = fifo_size * rate[i] / total_rate;
> + fifo_left -= wm_state->fifo_size[i];
> }
>
> fifo_extra = DIV_ROUND_UP(fifo_left, wm_state->num_active_planes ?: 1);
>
> /* spread the remainder evenly */
> - for_each_intel_plane_on_crtc(dev, crtc, plane) {
> + for (i = 0; i < I915_MAX_PLANES; i++) {
> int plane_extra;
>
> if (fifo_left == 0)
> break;
>
> - if (plane->base.type == DRM_PLANE_TYPE_CURSOR)
> + if (i == PLANE_CURSOR)
> continue;
>
> /* give it all to the first plane if none are active */
> - if (plane->wm.fifo_size == 0 &&
> + if (!wm_state->fifo_size[i] &&
> wm_state->num_active_planes)
> continue;
>
> plane_extra = min(fifo_extra, fifo_left);
> - plane->wm.fifo_size += plane_extra;
> + wm_state->fifo_size[i] += plane_extra;
> fifo_left -= plane_extra;
> }
>
> WARN_ON(fifo_left != 0);
> }
>
> -static void vlv_invert_wms(struct intel_crtc *crtc)
> +static void vlv_invert_wms(struct intel_crtc *crtc,
> + struct vlv_wm_state *wm_state)
> {
> - struct vlv_wm_state *wm_state = &crtc->wm_state;
Passing wm_state by parameter seems unrelated to the purpose of this
patch (moving the fifo_size field). Was it supposed to go in a later
patch?
> int level;
>
> for (level = 0; level < wm_state->num_levels; level++) {
> @@ -1064,19 +1063,24 @@ static void vlv_invert_wms(struct intel_crtc *crtc)
> wm_state->sr[level].cursor = 63 - wm_state->sr[level].cursor;
>
> for_each_intel_plane_on_crtc(dev, crtc, plane) {
> + int i = wm_plane_id(plane);
> +
> switch (plane->base.type) {
> int sprite;
> case DRM_PLANE_TYPE_CURSOR:
> - wm_state->wm[level].cursor = plane->wm.fifo_size -
> + wm_state->wm[level].cursor =
> + wm_state->fifo_size[i] -
> wm_state->wm[level].cursor;
> break;
> case DRM_PLANE_TYPE_PRIMARY:
> - wm_state->wm[level].primary = plane->wm.fifo_size -
> + wm_state->wm[level].primary =
> + wm_state->fifo_size[i] -
> wm_state->wm[level].primary;
> break;
> case DRM_PLANE_TYPE_OVERLAY:
> sprite = plane->plane;
> - wm_state->wm[level].sprite[sprite] = plane->wm.fifo_size -
> + wm_state->wm[level].sprite[sprite] =
> + wm_state->fifo_size[i] -
> wm_state->wm[level].sprite[sprite];
> break;
> }
> @@ -1084,7 +1088,7 @@ static void vlv_invert_wms(struct intel_crtc *crtc)
> }
> }
>
> -static void vlv_compute_wm(struct intel_crtc *crtc)
> +static int vlv_compute_wm(struct intel_crtc *crtc)
> {
> struct drm_device *dev = crtc->base.dev;
> struct vlv_wm_state *wm_state = &crtc->wm_state;
> @@ -1099,7 +1103,7 @@ static void vlv_compute_wm(struct intel_crtc *crtc)
>
> wm_state->num_active_planes = 0;
>
> - vlv_compute_fifo(crtc);
> + vlv_compute_fifo(crtc, wm_state);
>
> if (wm_state->num_active_planes != 1)
> wm_state->cxsr = false;
> @@ -1123,11 +1127,16 @@ static void vlv_compute_wm(struct intel_crtc *crtc)
> int wm = vlv_compute_wm_level(plane, crtc, state, level);
> int max_wm = plane->base.type == DRM_PLANE_TYPE_CURSOR ? 63 : 511;
>
> - /* hack */
> - if (WARN_ON(level == 0 && wm > max_wm))
> - wm = max_wm;
> + if (level == 0 && wm > max_wm) {
> + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Requested display configuration "
> + "exceeds system watermark limitations\n");
> + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Plane %d.%d: blocks required = %u/%u\n",
> + crtc->pipe,
> + drm_plane_index(&plane->base), wm, max_wm);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
This is an important change, but I think you meant to have this land in
a different patch since it's unrelated to the content of this patch
(which simply moves the fifo_size field).
>
> - if (wm > plane->wm.fifo_size)
> + if (wm > wm_state->fifo_size[wm_plane_id(plane)])
> break;
>
> switch (plane->base.type) {
> @@ -1180,7 +1189,9 @@ static void vlv_compute_wm(struct intel_crtc *crtc)
> memset(&wm_state->sr[level], 0, sizeof(wm_state->sr[level]));
> }
>
> - vlv_invert_wms(crtc);
> + vlv_invert_wms(crtc, wm_state);
> +
> + return 0;
> }
>
> #define VLV_FIFO(plane, value) \
> @@ -1190,24 +1201,18 @@ static void vlv_pipe_set_fifo_size(struct intel_crtc *crtc)
> {
> struct drm_device *dev = crtc->base.dev;
> struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dev);
> - struct intel_plane *plane;
> int sprite0_start = 0, sprite1_start = 0, fifo_size = 0;
> + const struct vlv_wm_state *wm_state = &crtc->wm_state;
>
> - for_each_intel_plane_on_crtc(dev, crtc, plane) {
> - if (plane->base.type == DRM_PLANE_TYPE_CURSOR) {
> - WARN_ON(plane->wm.fifo_size != 63);
> - continue;
> - }
>
> - if (plane->base.type == DRM_PLANE_TYPE_PRIMARY)
> - sprite0_start = plane->wm.fifo_size;
> - else if (plane->plane == 0)
> - sprite1_start = sprite0_start + plane->wm.fifo_size;
> - else
> - fifo_size = sprite1_start + plane->wm.fifo_size;
> - }
> + WARN_ON(wm_state->fifo_size[PLANE_CURSOR] != 63);
> + sprite0_start = wm_state->fifo_size[0];
> + sprite1_start = sprite0_start + wm_state->fifo_size[1];
> + fifo_size = sprite1_start + wm_state->fifo_size[2];
>
> - WARN_ON(fifo_size != 512 - 1);
> + WARN(fifo_size != 512 - 1, "Pipe %c FIFO split %d / %d / %d\n",
> + pipe_name(crtc->pipe), sprite0_start,
> + sprite1_start, fifo_size);
The DRM_DEBUG_KMS() call below gives the same info you're adding to the
message here; if a developer is debugging a problem here, I assume
they'll be running with drm.debug=0xf or similar, so do we really need
to change the WARN() line here to duplicate that info?
Matt
>
> DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Pipe %c FIFO split %d / %d / %d\n",
> pipe_name(crtc->pipe), sprite0_start,
> @@ -4216,6 +4221,7 @@ void vlv_wm_get_hw_state(struct drm_device *dev)
> {
> struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dev);
> struct vlv_wm_values *wm = &dev_priv->wm.vlv;
> + struct intel_crtc *crtc;
> struct intel_plane *plane;
> enum pipe pipe;
> u32 val;
> @@ -4223,17 +4229,20 @@ void vlv_wm_get_hw_state(struct drm_device *dev)
> vlv_read_wm_values(dev_priv, wm);
>
> for_each_intel_plane(dev, plane) {
> + struct vlv_wm_state *wm_state;
> + int i = wm_plane_id(plane);
> +
> + crtc = to_intel_crtc(intel_get_crtc_for_pipe(dev, plane->pipe));
> + wm_state = &crtc->wm_state;
> +
> switch (plane->base.type) {
> - int sprite;
> case DRM_PLANE_TYPE_CURSOR:
> - plane->wm.fifo_size = 63;
> + wm_state->fifo_size[i] = 63;
> break;
> case DRM_PLANE_TYPE_PRIMARY:
> - plane->wm.fifo_size = vlv_get_fifo_size(dev, plane->pipe, 0);
> - break;
> case DRM_PLANE_TYPE_OVERLAY:
> - sprite = plane->plane;
> - plane->wm.fifo_size = vlv_get_fifo_size(dev, plane->pipe, sprite + 1);
> + wm_state->fifo_size[i] =
> + vlv_get_fifo_size(dev, plane->pipe, i);
> break;
> }
> }
> --
> 1.8.0.1
>
> -------------------------------------
> isg-gms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://eclists.intel.com/sympa/info/isg-gms
> Unsubscribe by sending email to sympa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with subject "Unsubscribe isg-gms"
--
Matt Roper
Graphics Software Engineer
IoTG Platform Enabling & Development
Intel Corporation
(916) 356-2795
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
