From: "Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
To: "Borah, Chaitanya Kumar" <chaitanya.kumar.borah@intel.com>
Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
"intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org" <intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org"
<intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"Deak, Imre" <imre.deak@intel.com>,
"Shankar, Uma" <uma.shankar@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/display: Add upper limit check for pixel clock
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2025 22:24:26 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aGWHanRhse9y2MjV@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <SJ1PR11MB61290B4DE08CCB4DC32F71F1B940A@SJ1PR11MB6129.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
On Wed, Jul 02, 2025 at 09:42:04AM +0000, Borah, Chaitanya Kumar wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2025 2:01 PM
> > To: Borah, Chaitanya Kumar <chaitanya.kumar.borah@intel.com>; intel-
> > xe@lists.freedesktop.org; intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> > Cc: Deak, Imre <imre.deak@intel.com>; ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com; Shankar,
> > Uma <uma.shankar@intel.com>; Borah, Chaitanya Kumar
> > <chaitanya.kumar.borah@intel.com>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/display: Add upper limit check for pixel clock
> >
> > On Wed, 02 Jul 2025, Chaitanya Kumar Borah
> > <chaitanya.kumar.borah@intel.com> wrote:
> > > Add upper limit check for pixel clock by platform. Limits don't apply
> > > when DSC is enabled.
> > >
> > > For the currently supported versions of HDMI, pixel clock is already
> > > limited to 600Mhz so nothing needs to be done there as of now.
> > >
> > > BSpec: 49199, 68912
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Chaitanya Kumar Borah <chaitanya.kumar.borah@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c | 12 ++++++++++++
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.h | 1 +
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c | 3 +++
> > > 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> > > index 456fc4b04cda..bf0faff50c2e 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> > > @@ -7902,6 +7902,18 @@ void intel_setup_outputs(struct intel_display
> > *display)
> > > drm_helper_move_panel_connectors_to_head(display->drm);
> > > }
> > >
> > > +int intel_dotclock_limit(struct intel_display *display) {
> > > + if (DISPLAY_VERx100(display) == 3002)
> > > + return 937500;
> > > + else if (DISPLAY_VER(display) >= 30)
> > > + return 1350000;
> > > + else if (DISPLAY_VER(display) >= 13)
> > > + return 1200000;
> > > + else
> > > + return 1100000;
> > > +}
> >
> > How does this relate to display->cdclk.max_dotclk_freq that's computed in
> > intel_compute_max_dotclk(display)?
> >
>
> The Bspec defines this limit as "maximum validated frequency" and asks to limit the pixel clock accordingly when DSC is not enabled.
> At least for PTL it is 97.65 % of the mathematically calculated maximum pixel clock (pixel per clock * max cdclk).
>
> I am not sure if intel_cdclk_guardband() used in intel_compute_max_dotclk() was intended for something similar. However, since the limit only applies
> when dsc is not enabled it made sense to me that we apply this limit during intel_dp_mode_valid () instead of doing it in intel_compute_max_dotclk().
I think what we need is something like:
- implement the DSC bubble stuff and account for it in both
cdclk calculations and mode validation
- implement this non-dsc cdclk limit checks also in a way that
covers both (also needs to cover all output types, not just DP).
I suspect the DSC bubble stuff might always end up more restrictive
than this, so perhaps this could just be covered by adjusting the
cdclk guardband
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-07-02 19:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-07-02 4:27 [PATCH] drm/i915/display: Add upper limit check for pixel clock Chaitanya Kumar Borah
2025-07-02 7:36 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success for " Patchwork
2025-07-02 8:14 ` ✓ Xe.CI.BAT: " Patchwork
2025-07-02 8:31 ` [PATCH] " Jani Nikula
2025-07-02 9:42 ` Borah, Chaitanya Kumar
2025-07-02 19:24 ` Ville Syrjälä [this message]
2025-07-03 6:33 ` Nautiyal, Ankit K
2025-07-02 9:23 ` ✓ i915.CI.BAT: success for " Patchwork
2025-07-03 0:10 ` ✗ i915.CI.Full: failure " Patchwork
2025-07-03 21:58 ` ✓ Xe.CI.Full: success " 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=aGWHanRhse9y2MjV@intel.com \
--to=ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com \
--cc=chaitanya.kumar.borah@intel.com \
--cc=imre.deak@intel.com \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=jani.nikula@linux.intel.com \
--cc=uma.shankar@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.