* ✗ Fi.CI.SPARSE: warning for drm/i915/psr: Set idle frame count based on sink synchronization latency
2018-05-25 3:30 [PATCH] drm/i915/psr: Set idle frame count based on sink synchronization latency Dhinakaran Pandiyan
@ 2018-05-25 3:46 ` Patchwork
2018-05-25 4:01 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Patchwork @ 2018-05-25 3:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dhinakaran Pandiyan; +Cc: intel-gfx
== Series Details ==
Series: drm/i915/psr: Set idle frame count based on sink synchronization latency
URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/43742/
State : warning
== Summary ==
$ dim sparse origin/drm-tip
Commit: drm/i915/psr: Set idle frame count based on sink synchronization latency
-O:drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c:382:32: warning: expression using sizeof(void)
-O:drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c:434:32: warning: expression using sizeof(void)
+drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c:379:27: warning: expression using sizeof(void)
+drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c:384:23: warning: expression using sizeof(void)
+drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c:384:23: warning: expression using sizeof(void)
+drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c:432:27: warning: expression using sizeof(void)
+drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c:434:23: warning: expression using sizeof(void)
+drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c:434:23: warning: expression using sizeof(void)
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915/psr: Set idle frame count based on sink synchronization latency
2018-05-25 3:30 [PATCH] drm/i915/psr: Set idle frame count based on sink synchronization latency Dhinakaran Pandiyan
2018-05-25 3:46 ` ✗ Fi.CI.SPARSE: warning for " Patchwork
@ 2018-05-25 4:01 ` Patchwork
2018-05-25 7:04 ` ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: " Patchwork
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Patchwork @ 2018-05-25 4:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dhinakaran Pandiyan; +Cc: intel-gfx
== Series Details ==
Series: drm/i915/psr: Set idle frame count based on sink synchronization latency
URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/43742/
State : success
== Summary ==
= CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_4236 -> Patchwork_9113 =
== Summary - WARNING ==
Minor unknown changes coming with Patchwork_9113 need to be verified
manually.
If you think the reported changes have nothing to do with the changes
introduced in Patchwork_9113, please notify your bug team to allow them
to document this new failure mode, which will reduce false positives in CI.
External URL: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/43742/revisions/1/mbox/
== Possible new issues ==
Here are the unknown changes that may have been introduced in Patchwork_9113:
=== IGT changes ===
==== Warnings ====
igt@gem_exec_gttfill@basic:
fi-pnv-d510: PASS -> SKIP
== Known issues ==
Here are the changes found in Patchwork_9113 that come from known issues:
=== IGT changes ===
==== Possible fixes ====
igt@gem_mmap_gtt@basic-small-bo-tiledx:
fi-gdg-551: FAIL (fdo#102575) -> PASS
igt@kms_frontbuffer_tracking@basic:
fi-hsw-4200u: DMESG-FAIL (fdo#106103, fdo#102614) -> PASS
igt@prime_vgem@basic-fence-flip:
fi-ilk-650: FAIL (fdo#104008) -> PASS
fdo#102575 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102575
fdo#102614 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102614
fdo#104008 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=104008
fdo#106103 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106103
== Participating hosts (43 -> 39) ==
Additional (1): fi-snb-2520m
Missing (5): fi-ctg-p8600 fi-ilk-m540 fi-byt-squawks fi-bsw-cyan fi-skl-6700hq
== Build changes ==
* Linux: CI_DRM_4236 -> Patchwork_9113
CI_DRM_4236: 39b54b1e366012ce58e6a0cc175612577480992f @ git://anongit.freedesktop.org/gfx-ci/linux
IGT_4498: f9ecb79ad8b02278cfdb5b82495df47061c04f8f @ git://anongit.freedesktop.org/xorg/app/intel-gpu-tools
Patchwork_9113: 9601f363642d91c8ff0fa582fd2c6198e00feb46 @ git://anongit.freedesktop.org/gfx-ci/linux
== Linux commits ==
9601f363642d drm/i915/psr: Set idle frame count based on sink synchronization latency
== Logs ==
For more details see: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_9113/issues.html
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: success for drm/i915/psr: Set idle frame count based on sink synchronization latency
2018-05-25 3:30 [PATCH] drm/i915/psr: Set idle frame count based on sink synchronization latency Dhinakaran Pandiyan
2018-05-25 3:46 ` ✗ Fi.CI.SPARSE: warning for " Patchwork
2018-05-25 4:01 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
@ 2018-05-25 7:04 ` Patchwork
2018-05-25 7:17 ` [PATCH] " Jani Nikula
2018-05-29 19:51 ` Rodrigo Vivi
4 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Patchwork @ 2018-05-25 7:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dhinakaran Pandiyan; +Cc: intel-gfx
== Series Details ==
Series: drm/i915/psr: Set idle frame count based on sink synchronization latency
URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/43742/
State : success
== Summary ==
= CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_4236_full -> Patchwork_9113_full =
== Summary - WARNING ==
Minor unknown changes coming with Patchwork_9113_full need to be verified
manually.
If you think the reported changes have nothing to do with the changes
introduced in Patchwork_9113_full, please notify your bug team to allow them
to document this new failure mode, which will reduce false positives in CI.
External URL: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/43742/revisions/1/mbox/
== Possible new issues ==
Here are the unknown changes that may have been introduced in Patchwork_9113_full:
=== IGT changes ===
==== Warnings ====
igt@drv_selftest@live_gtt:
shard-glk: INCOMPLETE (fdo#103359, k.org#198133) -> FAIL
igt@gem_mocs_settings@mocs-rc6-bsd2:
shard-kbl: PASS -> SKIP
== Known issues ==
Here are the changes found in Patchwork_9113_full that come from known issues:
=== IGT changes ===
==== Issues hit ====
igt@drv_selftest@live_gtt:
shard-kbl: PASS -> INCOMPLETE (fdo#103665)
igt@gem_exec_await@wide-contexts:
shard-glk: PASS -> FAIL (fdo#105900)
igt@kms_atomic_transition@1x-modeset-transitions-nonblocking:
shard-glk: PASS -> FAIL (fdo#105703)
==== Possible fixes ====
igt@gem_ppgtt@blt-vs-render-ctx0:
shard-kbl: INCOMPLETE (fdo#103665, fdo#106023) -> PASS
igt@kms_atomic_transition@1x-modeset-transitions-nonblocking-fencing:
shard-glk: FAIL (fdo#105703) -> PASS
igt@kms_flip@2x-flip-vs-expired-vblank:
shard-glk: FAIL (fdo#105363) -> PASS
igt@kms_flip@plain-flip-fb-recreate:
shard-glk: FAIL (fdo#100368) -> PASS
igt@kms_flip_tiling@flip-x-tiled:
shard-glk: FAIL (fdo#104724, fdo#103822) -> PASS
igt@kms_frontbuffer_tracking@fbc-2p-primscrn-cur-indfb-draw-mmap-gtt:
shard-hsw: DMESG-FAIL (fdo#104724, fdo#103167) -> PASS
fdo#100368 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100368
fdo#103167 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103167
fdo#103359 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103359
fdo#103665 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103665
fdo#103822 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103822
fdo#104724 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=104724
fdo#105363 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105363
fdo#105703 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105703
fdo#105900 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105900
fdo#106023 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106023
k.org#198133 https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198133
== Participating hosts (5 -> 5) ==
No changes in participating hosts
== Build changes ==
* Linux: CI_DRM_4236 -> Patchwork_9113
CI_DRM_4236: 39b54b1e366012ce58e6a0cc175612577480992f @ git://anongit.freedesktop.org/gfx-ci/linux
IGT_4498: f9ecb79ad8b02278cfdb5b82495df47061c04f8f @ git://anongit.freedesktop.org/xorg/app/intel-gpu-tools
Patchwork_9113: 9601f363642d91c8ff0fa582fd2c6198e00feb46 @ git://anongit.freedesktop.org/gfx-ci/linux
== Logs ==
For more details see: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_9113/shards.html
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/psr: Set idle frame count based on sink synchronization latency
2018-05-25 3:30 [PATCH] drm/i915/psr: Set idle frame count based on sink synchronization latency Dhinakaran Pandiyan
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2018-05-25 7:04 ` ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: " Patchwork
@ 2018-05-25 7:17 ` Jani Nikula
2018-05-29 19:51 ` Rodrigo Vivi
4 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Jani Nikula @ 2018-05-25 7:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dhinakaran Pandiyan, intel-gfx; +Cc: Dhinakaran Pandiyan, Rodrigo Vivi
On Thu, 24 May 2018, Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan@gmail.com> wrote:
> DPCD 2009h "Synchronization latency in sink" has bits that tell us the
> maximum number of frames sink can take to resynchronize to source timing
> when exiting PSR. More importantly, as per eDP 1.4b, this is the "Minimum
> number of frames following PSR exit that the Source device needs to
> wait for PSR entry."
>
> We currently use this value only to setup the number frames to wait before
> PSR2 selective update. But, based on the above description it makes more
> sense to use this to configure idle frames for both PSR1 and and PSR2. This
> will ensure we wait the required number of frames before
> activation whether it is PSR1 or PSR2.
>
> The minimum number of idle frames remains 6, while allowing sink
> synchronization latency and VBT to increase this value.
>
> This also solves the flip-flop between sink and source frames that I
> noticed on my Thinkpad X260 during PSR exit. This specific panel has a
> value of 8h, which according to the spec means the "Source device must
> wait for more than eight active frames after PSR exit before initiating PSR
> entry. (In this case, should be provided by the panel supplier.)" VBT
> however has a value of 0.
>
> Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
> Cc: Jose Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@intel.com>
> Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan@intel.com>
How badly does this depend on the last psr series that was just merged?
I.e. does cc: stable make any sense?
BR,
Jani.
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> index ebc483f06c6f..71dfe541740f 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> @@ -247,6 +247,8 @@ void intel_psr_init_dpcd(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> return;
> }
> dev_priv->psr.sink_support = true;
> + dev_priv->psr.sink_sync_latency =
> + intel_dp_get_sink_sync_latency(intel_dp);
>
> if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 9 &&
> (intel_dp->psr_dpcd[0] == DP_PSR2_WITH_Y_COORD_IS_SUPPORTED)) {
> @@ -272,8 +274,6 @@ void intel_psr_init_dpcd(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> if (dev_priv->psr.sink_psr2_support) {
> dev_priv->psr.colorimetry_support =
> intel_dp_get_colorimetry_status(intel_dp);
> - dev_priv->psr.sink_sync_latency =
> - intel_dp_get_sink_sync_latency(intel_dp);
> }
> }
> }
> @@ -370,21 +370,21 @@ static void hsw_activate_psr1(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> struct intel_digital_port *dig_port = dp_to_dig_port(intel_dp);
> struct drm_device *dev = dig_port->base.base.dev;
> struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dev);
> + u32 max_sleep_time = 0x1f;
> + u32 val = EDP_PSR_ENABLE;
>
> - uint32_t max_sleep_time = 0x1f;
> - /*
> - * Let's respect VBT in case VBT asks a higher idle_frame value.
> - * Let's use 6 as the minimum to cover all known cases including
> - * the off-by-one issue that HW has in some cases. Also there are
> - * cases where sink should be able to train
> - * with the 5 or 6 idle patterns.
> + /* Let's use 6 as the minimum to cover all known cases including the
> + * off-by-one issue that HW has in some cases.
> */
> - uint32_t idle_frames = max(6, dev_priv->vbt.psr.idle_frames);
> - uint32_t val = EDP_PSR_ENABLE;
> + int idle_frames = max(6, dev_priv->vbt.psr.idle_frames);
>
> - val |= max_sleep_time << EDP_PSR_MAX_SLEEP_TIME_SHIFT;
> + /* sink_sync_latency of 8 means source has to wait for more than 8
> + * frames, we'll go with 9 frames for now
> + */
> + idle_frames = max(idle_frames, dev_priv->psr.sink_sync_latency + 1);
> val |= idle_frames << EDP_PSR_IDLE_FRAME_SHIFT;
>
> + val |= max_sleep_time << EDP_PSR_MAX_SLEEP_TIME_SHIFT;
> if (IS_HASWELL(dev_priv))
> val |= EDP_PSR_MIN_LINK_ENTRY_TIME_8_LINES;
>
> @@ -424,15 +424,15 @@ static void hsw_activate_psr2(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> struct intel_digital_port *dig_port = dp_to_dig_port(intel_dp);
> struct drm_device *dev = dig_port->base.base.dev;
> struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dev);
> - /*
> - * Let's respect VBT in case VBT asks a higher idle_frame value.
> - * Let's use 6 as the minimum to cover all known cases including
> - * the off-by-one issue that HW has in some cases. Also there are
> - * cases where sink should be able to train
> - * with the 5 or 6 idle patterns.
> + u32 val;
> +
> + /* Let's use 6 as the minimum to cover all known cases including the
> + * off-by-one issue that HW has in some cases.
> */
> - uint32_t idle_frames = max(6, dev_priv->vbt.psr.idle_frames);
> - u32 val = idle_frames << EDP_PSR2_IDLE_FRAME_SHIFT;
> + int idle_frames = max(6, dev_priv->vbt.psr.idle_frames);
> +
> + idle_frames = max(idle_frames, dev_priv->psr.sink_sync_latency + 1);
> + val = idle_frames << EDP_PSR2_IDLE_FRAME_SHIFT;
>
> /* FIXME: selective update is probably totally broken because it doesn't
> * mesh at all with our frontbuffer tracking. And the hw alone isn't
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/psr: Set idle frame count based on sink synchronization latency
2018-05-25 3:30 [PATCH] drm/i915/psr: Set idle frame count based on sink synchronization latency Dhinakaran Pandiyan
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2018-05-25 7:17 ` [PATCH] " Jani Nikula
@ 2018-05-29 19:51 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2018-05-29 19:55 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2018-05-29 21:30 ` Dhinakaran Pandiyan
4 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Rodrigo Vivi @ 2018-05-29 19:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dhinakaran Pandiyan; +Cc: Jani Nikula, intel-gfx, Dhinakaran Pandiyan
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 08:30:47PM -0700, Dhinakaran Pandiyan wrote:
> DPCD 2009h "Synchronization latency in sink" has bits that tell us the
> maximum number of frames sink can take to resynchronize to source timing
> when exiting PSR. More importantly, as per eDP 1.4b, this is the "Minimum
> number of frames following PSR exit that the Source device needs to
> wait for PSR entry."
>
> We currently use this value only to setup the number frames to wait before
> PSR2 selective update. But, based on the above description it makes more
> sense to use this to configure idle frames for both PSR1 and and PSR2. This
> will ensure we wait the required number of frames before
> activation whether it is PSR1 or PSR2.
>
> The minimum number of idle frames remains 6, while allowing sink
> synchronization latency and VBT to increase this value.
>
> This also solves the flip-flop between sink and source frames that I
> noticed on my Thinkpad X260 during PSR exit. This specific panel has a
> value of 8h, which according to the spec means the "Source device must
> wait for more than eight active frames after PSR exit before initiating PSR
> entry. (In this case, should be provided by the panel supplier.)" VBT
> however has a value of 0.
>
> Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
> Cc: Jose Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@intel.com>
> Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> index ebc483f06c6f..71dfe541740f 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> @@ -247,6 +247,8 @@ void intel_psr_init_dpcd(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> return;
> }
> dev_priv->psr.sink_support = true;
> + dev_priv->psr.sink_sync_latency =
> + intel_dp_get_sink_sync_latency(intel_dp);
>
> if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 9 &&
> (intel_dp->psr_dpcd[0] == DP_PSR2_WITH_Y_COORD_IS_SUPPORTED)) {
> @@ -272,8 +274,6 @@ void intel_psr_init_dpcd(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> if (dev_priv->psr.sink_psr2_support) {
> dev_priv->psr.colorimetry_support =
> intel_dp_get_colorimetry_status(intel_dp);
> - dev_priv->psr.sink_sync_latency =
> - intel_dp_get_sink_sync_latency(intel_dp);
> }
> }
> }
> @@ -370,21 +370,21 @@ static void hsw_activate_psr1(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> struct intel_digital_port *dig_port = dp_to_dig_port(intel_dp);
> struct drm_device *dev = dig_port->base.base.dev;
> struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dev);
> + u32 max_sleep_time = 0x1f;
> + u32 val = EDP_PSR_ENABLE;
>
> - uint32_t max_sleep_time = 0x1f;
> - /*
> - * Let's respect VBT in case VBT asks a higher idle_frame value.
> - * Let's use 6 as the minimum to cover all known cases including
> - * the off-by-one issue that HW has in some cases. Also there are
> - * cases where sink should be able to train
> - * with the 5 or 6 idle patterns.
> + /* Let's use 6 as the minimum to cover all known cases including the
> + * off-by-one issue that HW has in some cases.
> */
> - uint32_t idle_frames = max(6, dev_priv->vbt.psr.idle_frames);
> - uint32_t val = EDP_PSR_ENABLE;
> + int idle_frames = max(6, dev_priv->vbt.psr.idle_frames);
>
> - val |= max_sleep_time << EDP_PSR_MAX_SLEEP_TIME_SHIFT;
> + /* sink_sync_latency of 8 means source has to wait for more than 8
> + * frames, we'll go with 9 frames for now
> + */
> + idle_frames = max(idle_frames, dev_priv->psr.sink_sync_latency + 1);
> val |= idle_frames << EDP_PSR_IDLE_FRAME_SHIFT;
>
> + val |= max_sleep_time << EDP_PSR_MAX_SLEEP_TIME_SHIFT;
> if (IS_HASWELL(dev_priv))
> val |= EDP_PSR_MIN_LINK_ENTRY_TIME_8_LINES;
>
> @@ -424,15 +424,15 @@ static void hsw_activate_psr2(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> struct intel_digital_port *dig_port = dp_to_dig_port(intel_dp);
> struct drm_device *dev = dig_port->base.base.dev;
> struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dev);
> - /*
> - * Let's respect VBT in case VBT asks a higher idle_frame value.
> - * Let's use 6 as the minimum to cover all known cases including
> - * the off-by-one issue that HW has in some cases. Also there are
> - * cases where sink should be able to train
> - * with the 5 or 6 idle patterns.
> + u32 val;
> +
> + /* Let's use 6 as the minimum to cover all known cases including the
> + * off-by-one issue that HW has in some cases.
> */
> - uint32_t idle_frames = max(6, dev_priv->vbt.psr.idle_frames);
> - u32 val = idle_frames << EDP_PSR2_IDLE_FRAME_SHIFT;
> + int idle_frames = max(6, dev_priv->vbt.psr.idle_frames);
> +
> + idle_frames = max(idle_frames, dev_priv->psr.sink_sync_latency + 1);
> + val = idle_frames << EDP_PSR2_IDLE_FRAME_SHIFT;
I wonder if we should consolidate all this login in a single function since they
are identical and only the shift is different...
But the logic is correct. I checked eDP 1.3 and 1.4 specs and I believe we
need to move forward with this change and do clean-ups on follow-ups.
Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Also I don't believe that we need cc:stable because we never enabled it anywhere
anyway besides the fact that it wont be a clean backport.
>
> /* FIXME: selective update is probably totally broken because it doesn't
> * mesh at all with our frontbuffer tracking. And the hw alone isn't
> --
> 2.14.1
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/psr: Set idle frame count based on sink synchronization latency
2018-05-29 19:51 ` Rodrigo Vivi
@ 2018-05-29 19:55 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2018-05-29 21:30 ` Dhinakaran Pandiyan
1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Rodrigo Vivi @ 2018-05-29 19:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dhinakaran Pandiyan; +Cc: Jani Nikula, intel-gfx, Dhinakaran Pandiyan
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 12:51:23PM -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 08:30:47PM -0700, Dhinakaran Pandiyan wrote:
> > DPCD 2009h "Synchronization latency in sink" has bits that tell us the
> > maximum number of frames sink can take to resynchronize to source timing
> > when exiting PSR. More importantly, as per eDP 1.4b, this is the "Minimum
> > number of frames following PSR exit that the Source device needs to
> > wait for PSR entry."
> >
> > We currently use this value only to setup the number frames to wait before
> > PSR2 selective update. But, based on the above description it makes more
> > sense to use this to configure idle frames for both PSR1 and and PSR2. This
> > will ensure we wait the required number of frames before
> > activation whether it is PSR1 or PSR2.
> >
> > The minimum number of idle frames remains 6, while allowing sink
> > synchronization latency and VBT to increase this value.
> >
> > This also solves the flip-flop between sink and source frames that I
> > noticed on my Thinkpad X260 during PSR exit. This specific panel has a
> > value of 8h, which according to the spec means the "Source device must
> > wait for more than eight active frames after PSR exit before initiating PSR
> > entry. (In this case, should be provided by the panel supplier.)" VBT
> > however has a value of 0.
> >
> > Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
> > Cc: Jose Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@intel.com>
> > Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan@intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
> > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > index ebc483f06c6f..71dfe541740f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > @@ -247,6 +247,8 @@ void intel_psr_init_dpcd(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> > return;
> > }
> > dev_priv->psr.sink_support = true;
> > + dev_priv->psr.sink_sync_latency =
> > + intel_dp_get_sink_sync_latency(intel_dp);
> >
> > if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 9 &&
> > (intel_dp->psr_dpcd[0] == DP_PSR2_WITH_Y_COORD_IS_SUPPORTED)) {
> > @@ -272,8 +274,6 @@ void intel_psr_init_dpcd(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> > if (dev_priv->psr.sink_psr2_support) {
> > dev_priv->psr.colorimetry_support =
> > intel_dp_get_colorimetry_status(intel_dp);
> > - dev_priv->psr.sink_sync_latency =
> > - intel_dp_get_sink_sync_latency(intel_dp);
> > }
> > }
> > }
> > @@ -370,21 +370,21 @@ static void hsw_activate_psr1(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> > struct intel_digital_port *dig_port = dp_to_dig_port(intel_dp);
> > struct drm_device *dev = dig_port->base.base.dev;
> > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dev);
> > + u32 max_sleep_time = 0x1f;
> > + u32 val = EDP_PSR_ENABLE;
> >
> > - uint32_t max_sleep_time = 0x1f;
> > - /*
> > - * Let's respect VBT in case VBT asks a higher idle_frame value.
> > - * Let's use 6 as the minimum to cover all known cases including
> > - * the off-by-one issue that HW has in some cases. Also there are
> > - * cases where sink should be able to train
> > - * with the 5 or 6 idle patterns.
> > + /* Let's use 6 as the minimum to cover all known cases including the
> > + * off-by-one issue that HW has in some cases.
> > */
> > - uint32_t idle_frames = max(6, dev_priv->vbt.psr.idle_frames);
> > - uint32_t val = EDP_PSR_ENABLE;
> > + int idle_frames = max(6, dev_priv->vbt.psr.idle_frames);
> >
> > - val |= max_sleep_time << EDP_PSR_MAX_SLEEP_TIME_SHIFT;
> > + /* sink_sync_latency of 8 means source has to wait for more than 8
> > + * frames, we'll go with 9 frames for now
> > + */
> > + idle_frames = max(idle_frames, dev_priv->psr.sink_sync_latency + 1);
> > val |= idle_frames << EDP_PSR_IDLE_FRAME_SHIFT;
> >
> > + val |= max_sleep_time << EDP_PSR_MAX_SLEEP_TIME_SHIFT;
> > if (IS_HASWELL(dev_priv))
> > val |= EDP_PSR_MIN_LINK_ENTRY_TIME_8_LINES;
> >
> > @@ -424,15 +424,15 @@ static void hsw_activate_psr2(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> > struct intel_digital_port *dig_port = dp_to_dig_port(intel_dp);
> > struct drm_device *dev = dig_port->base.base.dev;
> > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dev);
> > - /*
> > - * Let's respect VBT in case VBT asks a higher idle_frame value.
> > - * Let's use 6 as the minimum to cover all known cases including
> > - * the off-by-one issue that HW has in some cases. Also there are
> > - * cases where sink should be able to train
> > - * with the 5 or 6 idle patterns.
> > + u32 val;
> > +
> > + /* Let's use 6 as the minimum to cover all known cases including the
> > + * off-by-one issue that HW has in some cases.
> > */
> > - uint32_t idle_frames = max(6, dev_priv->vbt.psr.idle_frames);
> > - u32 val = idle_frames << EDP_PSR2_IDLE_FRAME_SHIFT;
> > + int idle_frames = max(6, dev_priv->vbt.psr.idle_frames);
> > +
> > + idle_frames = max(idle_frames, dev_priv->psr.sink_sync_latency + 1);
> > + val = idle_frames << EDP_PSR2_IDLE_FRAME_SHIFT;
>
> I wonder if we should consolidate all this login in a single function since they
> are identical and only the shift is different...
>
> But the logic is correct. I checked eDP 1.3 and 1.4 specs and I believe we
> need to move forward with this change and do clean-ups on follow-ups.
>
>
> Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
and pushed to dinq. thanks
>
> Also I don't believe that we need cc:stable because we never enabled it anywhere
> anyway besides the fact that it wont be a clean backport.
>
> >
> > /* FIXME: selective update is probably totally broken because it doesn't
> > * mesh at all with our frontbuffer tracking. And the hw alone isn't
> > --
> > 2.14.1
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Intel-gfx mailing list
> > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/psr: Set idle frame count based on sink synchronization latency
2018-05-29 19:51 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2018-05-29 19:55 ` Rodrigo Vivi
@ 2018-05-29 21:30 ` Dhinakaran Pandiyan
1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Dhinakaran Pandiyan @ 2018-05-29 21:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rodrigo Vivi; +Cc: Jani Nikula, intel-gfx
On Tue, 2018-05-29 at 12:51 -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 08:30:47PM -0700, Dhinakaran Pandiyan wrote:
> >
> > DPCD 2009h "Synchronization latency in sink" has bits that tell us
> > the
> > maximum number of frames sink can take to resynchronize to source
> > timing
> > when exiting PSR. More importantly, as per eDP 1.4b, this is the
> > "Minimum
> > number of frames following PSR exit that the Source device needs to
> > wait for PSR entry."
> >
> > We currently use this value only to setup the number frames to wait
> > before
> > PSR2 selective update. But, based on the above description it makes
> > more
> > sense to use this to configure idle frames for both PSR1 and and
> > PSR2. This
> > will ensure we wait the required number of frames before
> > activation whether it is PSR1 or PSR2.
> >
> > The minimum number of idle frames remains 6, while allowing sink
> > synchronization latency and VBT to increase this value.
> >
> > This also solves the flip-flop between sink and source frames that
> > I
> > noticed on my Thinkpad X260 during PSR exit. This specific panel
> > has a
> > value of 8h, which according to the spec means the "Source device
> > must
> > wait for more than eight active frames after PSR exit before
> > initiating PSR
> > entry. (In this case, should be provided by the panel supplier.)"
> > VBT
> > however has a value of 0.
> >
> > Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
> > Cc: Jose Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@intel.com>
> > Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan@intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++------
> > --------------
> > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > index ebc483f06c6f..71dfe541740f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > @@ -247,6 +247,8 @@ void intel_psr_init_dpcd(struct intel_dp
> > *intel_dp)
> > return;
> > }
> > dev_priv->psr.sink_support = true;
> > + dev_priv->psr.sink_sync_latency =
> > + intel_dp_get_sink_sync_latency(intel_dp);
> >
> > if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 9 &&
> > (intel_dp->psr_dpcd[0] ==
> > DP_PSR2_WITH_Y_COORD_IS_SUPPORTED)) {
> > @@ -272,8 +274,6 @@ void intel_psr_init_dpcd(struct intel_dp
> > *intel_dp)
> > if (dev_priv->psr.sink_psr2_support) {
> > dev_priv->psr.colorimetry_support =
> > intel_dp_get_colorimetry_status(in
> > tel_dp);
> > - dev_priv->psr.sink_sync_latency =
> > - intel_dp_get_sink_sync_latency(int
> > el_dp);
> > }
> > }
> > }
> > @@ -370,21 +370,21 @@ static void hsw_activate_psr1(struct intel_dp
> > *intel_dp)
> > struct intel_digital_port *dig_port =
> > dp_to_dig_port(intel_dp);
> > struct drm_device *dev = dig_port->base.base.dev;
> > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dev);
> > + u32 max_sleep_time = 0x1f;
> > + u32 val = EDP_PSR_ENABLE;
> >
> > - uint32_t max_sleep_time = 0x1f;
> > - /*
> > - * Let's respect VBT in case VBT asks a higher idle_frame
> > value.
> > - * Let's use 6 as the minimum to cover all known cases
> > including
> > - * the off-by-one issue that HW has in some cases. Also
> > there are
> > - * cases where sink should be able to train
> > - * with the 5 or 6 idle patterns.
> > + /* Let's use 6 as the minimum to cover all known cases
> > including the
> > + * off-by-one issue that HW has in some cases.
> > */
> > - uint32_t idle_frames = max(6, dev_priv-
> > >vbt.psr.idle_frames);
> > - uint32_t val = EDP_PSR_ENABLE;
> > + int idle_frames = max(6, dev_priv->vbt.psr.idle_frames);
> >
> > - val |= max_sleep_time << EDP_PSR_MAX_SLEEP_TIME_SHIFT;
> > + /* sink_sync_latency of 8 means source has to wait for
> > more than 8
> > + * frames, we'll go with 9 frames for now
> > + */
> > + idle_frames = max(idle_frames, dev_priv-
> > >psr.sink_sync_latency + 1);
> > val |= idle_frames << EDP_PSR_IDLE_FRAME_SHIFT;
> >
> > + val |= max_sleep_time << EDP_PSR_MAX_SLEEP_TIME_SHIFT;
> > if (IS_HASWELL(dev_priv))
> > val |= EDP_PSR_MIN_LINK_ENTRY_TIME_8_LINES;
> >
> > @@ -424,15 +424,15 @@ static void hsw_activate_psr2(struct intel_dp
> > *intel_dp)
> > struct intel_digital_port *dig_port =
> > dp_to_dig_port(intel_dp);
> > struct drm_device *dev = dig_port->base.base.dev;
> > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dev);
> > - /*
> > - * Let's respect VBT in case VBT asks a higher idle_frame
> > value.
> > - * Let's use 6 as the minimum to cover all known cases
> > including
> > - * the off-by-one issue that HW has in some cases. Also
> > there are
> > - * cases where sink should be able to train
> > - * with the 5 or 6 idle patterns.
> > + u32 val;
> > +
> > + /* Let's use 6 as the minimum to cover all known cases
> > including the
> > + * off-by-one issue that HW has in some cases.
> > */
> > - uint32_t idle_frames = max(6, dev_priv-
> > >vbt.psr.idle_frames);
> > - u32 val = idle_frames << EDP_PSR2_IDLE_FRAME_SHIFT;
> > + int idle_frames = max(6, dev_priv->vbt.psr.idle_frames);
> > +
> > + idle_frames = max(idle_frames, dev_priv-
> > >psr.sink_sync_latency + 1);
> > + val = idle_frames << EDP_PSR2_IDLE_FRAME_SHIFT;
> I wonder if we should consolidate all this login in a single function
> since they
> are identical and only the shift is different...
>
> But the logic is correct. I checked eDP 1.3 and 1.4 specs and I
> believe we
> need to move forward with this change and do clean-ups on follow-ups.
>
>
> Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
>
> Also I don't believe that we need cc:stable because we never enabled
> it anywhere
> anyway besides the fact that it wont be a clean backport.
Yeah, we've had a couple of commits that touch this code, won't be a
clean back port.
Thanks for reviewing and merging this patch.
>
> >
> >
> > /* FIXME: selective update is probably totally broken
> > because it doesn't
> > * mesh at all with our frontbuffer tracking. And the hw
> > alone isn't
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread