From: "Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
To: "Lisovskiy, Stanislav" <stanislav.lisovskiy@intel.com>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Fix FIFO underruns caused by missing cumulative bpp W/A
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 15:04:59 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Yk7Ta4TsnN1xLreF@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220407112417.GA20534@intel.com>
On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 02:24:17PM +0300, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 02:10:52PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 11:42:35AM +0300, Stanislav Lisovskiy wrote:
> > > We had some FIFO underruns appearing on platforms like ADL,
> > > which could be fixed though by increasing CDCLK, however we were
> > > lacking explanation for that - we were not calculating CDCLK,
> > > also based on cumulative bpp W/A formula, mentioned in BSpec 64631.
> >
> > We already have that in intel_bw_crtc_min_cdclk().
>
> It actually is not quite what BSpec is talking about it adds
> data_rate per plane, instead of bpp, I think it confuses
> those 2 from BSpec:
>
> "
> Plane required bandwidth MB/s = pixel rate MHz * source pixel format in bytes
> * plane down scale amount * pipe down scale amount
> Display required memory bandwidth MB/s += Plane required bandwidth
> Pipe cumulative bytes per pixel += plane source pixel format in bytes
> "
>
> then we have to different formulas used to estimate whats the CDCLK
> should be, one is "DBUF maximum data buffer bandwidth MB/s = CDCLK frequency MHz * 64 Bytes"
>
> another is pipe CDCLK = cumulative bytes per pixel * (pixel rate MHz *
> plane down scale amount * pipe down scale amount)) * 51.2)
That specific statement in the spec is kinda nonsense. Mixing
"plane up/down scale amount" (which is per plane) with this
"cumulative bytes per pixel" thing (which is sum of bytes per pixel
across all planes) doesn't make sense.
What we so is sum bytes_per_pixel*pixel_rate*plane_up/down_scale from
all planes, which I think is what the spec is trying to say as that
is the cumulative bw used up by all the planes.
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-04-07 12:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-04-07 8:42 [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Fix FIFO underruns caused by missing cumulative bpp W/A Stanislav Lisovskiy
2022-04-07 8:51 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for " Patchwork
2022-04-07 9:23 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure " Patchwork
2022-04-07 9:59 ` Lisovskiy, Stanislav
2022-04-07 9:23 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BUILD: warning " Patchwork
2022-04-07 11:10 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] " Ville Syrjälä
2022-04-07 11:24 ` Lisovskiy, Stanislav
2022-04-07 12:04 ` Ville Syrjälä [this message]
2022-04-07 11:39 ` Lisovskiy, Stanislav
2022-04-07 13:06 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for drm/i915: Fix FIFO underruns caused by missing cumulative bpp W/A (rev2) Patchwork
2022-04-07 13:39 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure " Patchwork
2022-04-07 13:39 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BUILD: warning " Patchwork
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Yk7Ta4TsnN1xLreF@intel.com \
--to=ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=stanislav.lisovskiy@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.