Re: [PATCH 07/13] drm/i915: Use a table to initilize shared dplls

Ander Conselvan De Oliveira
2016-03-03T11:32:33Z

Hi Maarten,

Thanks for reviewing. Comments below.

On Wed, 2016-03-02 at 16:30 +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> Op 26-02-16 om 14:54 schreef Ander Conselvan de Oliveira:
> > Use a table to store the per-platform shared dpll information in one
> > place. This way, there is no need for platform specific init funtions.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ander Conselvan de Oliveira <
> > ander.conselvan.de.oliveira@intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 16 +--
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dpll_mgr.c | 189 ++++++++++++++++---------------
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dpll_mgr.h | 22 ++--
> > 3 files changed, 108 insertions(+), 119 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> > index e723323..133b6b7 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> > @@ -9148,8 +9148,8 @@ static bool ironlake_get_pipe_config(struct intel_crtc
> > *crtc,
> > intel_get_shared_dpll_by_id(dev_priv, pll_id);
> > pll = pipe_config->shared_dpll;
> >
> > - WARN_ON(!pll->get_hw_state(dev_priv, pll,
> > - &pipe_config->dpll_hw_state));
> > + WARN_ON(!pll->funcs.get_hw_state(dev_priv, pll,
> > + &pipe_config
> > ->dpll_hw_state));
> >
> > tmp = pipe_config->dpll_hw_state.dpll;
> > pipe_config->pixel_multiplier =
> > @@ -9695,8 +9695,8 @@ static void haswell_get_ddi_port_state(struct
> > intel_crtc *crtc,
> >
> > pll = pipe_config->shared_dpll;
> > if (pll) {
> > - WARN_ON(!pll->get_hw_state(dev_priv, pll,
> > - &pipe_config->dpll_hw_state));
> > + WARN_ON(!pll->funcs.get_hw_state(dev_priv, pll,
> > + &pipe_config
> > ->dpll_hw_state));
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -12728,7 +12728,7 @@ check_shared_dpll_state(struct drm_device *dev)
> >
> > DRM_DEBUG_KMS("%s\n", pll->name);
> >
> > - active = pll->get_hw_state(dev_priv, pll, &dpll_hw_state);
> > + active = pll->funcs.get_hw_state(dev_priv, pll,
> > &dpll_hw_state);
> >
> > I915_STATE_WARN(pll->active > hweight32(pll
> > ->config.crtc_mask),
> > "more active pll users than references: %i vs %i\n",
> > @@ -15466,8 +15466,8 @@ static void intel_modeset_readout_hw_state(struct
> > drm_device *dev)
> > for (i = 0; i < dev_priv->num_shared_dpll; i++) {
> > struct intel_shared_dpll *pll = &dev_priv->shared_dplls[i];
> >
> > - pll->on = pll->get_hw_state(dev_priv, pll,
> > - &pll->config.hw_state);
> > + pll->on = pll->funcs.get_hw_state(dev_priv, pll,
> > + &pll->config.hw_state);
> > pll->active = 0;
> > pll->config.crtc_mask = 0;
> > for_each_intel_crtc(dev, crtc) {
> > @@ -15602,7 +15602,7 @@ intel_modeset_setup_hw_state(struct drm_device *dev)
> >
> > DRM_DEBUG_KMS("%s enabled but not in use, disabling\n", pll
> > ->name);
> >
> > - pll->disable(dev_priv, pll);
> > + pll->funcs.disable(dev_priv, pll);
> > pll->on = false;
> > }
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dpll_mgr.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dpll_mgr.c
> > index 889ceed..e88dc46 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dpll_mgr.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dpll_mgr.c
> > @@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ void assert_shared_dpll(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > if (WARN(!pll, "asserting DPLL %s with no DPLL\n", onoff(state)))
> > return;
> >
> > - cur_state = pll->get_hw_state(dev_priv, pll, &hw_state);
> > + cur_state = pll->funcs.get_hw_state(dev_priv, pll, &hw_state);
> > I915_STATE_WARN(cur_state != state,
> > "%s assertion failure (expected %s, current %s)\n",
> > pll->name, onoff(state), onoff(cur_state));
> > @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ void intel_prepare_shared_dpll(struct intel_crtc *crtc)
> > WARN_ON(pll->on);
> > assert_shared_dpll_disabled(dev_priv, pll);
> >
> > - pll->mode_set(dev_priv, pll);
> > + pll->funcs.mode_set(dev_priv, pll);
> > }
> > }
> >
> > @@ -133,7 +133,7 @@ void intel_enable_shared_dpll(struct intel_crtc *crtc)
> > intel_display_power_get(dev_priv, POWER_DOMAIN_PLLS);
> >
> > DRM_DEBUG_KMS("enabling %s\n", pll->name);
> > - pll->enable(dev_priv, pll);
> > + pll->funcs.enable(dev_priv, pll);
> > pll->on = true;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ void intel_disable_shared_dpll(struct intel_crtc *crtc)
> > return;
> >
> > DRM_DEBUG_KMS("disabling %s\n", pll->name);
> > - pll->disable(dev_priv, pll);
> > + pll->funcs.disable(dev_priv, pll);
> > pll->on = false;
> >
> > intel_display_power_put(dev_priv, POWER_DOMAIN_PLLS);
> > @@ -398,29 +398,13 @@ static void ibx_pch_dpll_disable(struct
> > drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > udelay(200);
> > }
> >
> > -static char *ibx_pch_dpll_names[] = {
> > - "PCH DPLL A",
> > - "PCH DPLL B",
> > +static const struct intel_shared_dpll_funcs ibx_pch_dpll_funcs = {
> > + .mode_set = ibx_pch_dpll_mode_set,
> > + .enable = ibx_pch_dpll_enable,
> > + .disable = ibx_pch_dpll_disable,
> > + .get_hw_state = ibx_pch_dpll_get_hw_state,
> > };
> >
> > -static void ibx_pch_dpll_init(struct drm_device *dev)
> > -{
> > - struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
> > - int i;
> > -
> > - dev_priv->num_shared_dpll = 2;
> > -
> > - for (i = 0; i < dev_priv->num_shared_dpll; i++) {
> > - dev_priv->shared_dplls[i].id = i;
> > - dev_priv->shared_dplls[i].name = ibx_pch_dpll_names[i];
> > - dev_priv->shared_dplls[i].mode_set = ibx_pch_dpll_mode_set;
> > - dev_priv->shared_dplls[i].enable = ibx_pch_dpll_enable;
> > - dev_priv->shared_dplls[i].disable = ibx_pch_dpll_disable;
> > - dev_priv->shared_dplls[i].get_hw_state =
> > - ibx_pch_dpll_get_hw_state;
> > - }
> > -}
> > -
> > static void hsw_ddi_wrpll_enable(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > struct intel_shared_dpll *pll)
> > {
> > @@ -492,40 +476,16 @@ static bool hsw_ddi_spll_get_hw_state(struct
> > drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > }
> >
> >
> > -static const char * const hsw_ddi_pll_names[] = {
> > - "WRPLL 1",
> > - "WRPLL 2",
> > - "SPLL"
> > +static const struct intel_shared_dpll_funcs hsw_ddi_wrpll_funcs = {
> > + .enable = hsw_ddi_wrpll_enable,
> > + .disable = hsw_ddi_wrpll_disable,
> > + .get_hw_state = hsw_ddi_wrpll_get_hw_state,
> > };
> >
> > -static void hsw_shared_dplls_init(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > -{
> > - int i;
> > -
> > - dev_priv->num_shared_dpll = 3;
> > -
> > - for (i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
> > - dev_priv->shared_dplls[i].id = i;
> > - dev_priv->shared_dplls[i].name = hsw_ddi_pll_names[i];
> > - dev_priv->shared_dplls[i].disable = hsw_ddi_wrpll_disable;
> > - dev_priv->shared_dplls[i].enable = hsw_ddi_wrpll_enable;
> > - dev_priv->shared_dplls[i].get_hw_state =
> > - hsw_ddi_wrpll_get_hw_state;
> > - }
> > -
> > - /* SPLL is special, but needs to be initialized anyway.. */
> > - dev_priv->shared_dplls[i].id = i;
> > - dev_priv->shared_dplls[i].name = hsw_ddi_pll_names[i];
> > - dev_priv->shared_dplls[i].disable = hsw_ddi_spll_disable;
> > - dev_priv->shared_dplls[i].enable = hsw_ddi_spll_enable;
> > - dev_priv->shared_dplls[i].get_hw_state = hsw_ddi_spll_get_hw_state;
> > -
> > -}
> > -
> > -static const char * const skl_ddi_pll_names[] = {
> > - "DPLL 1",
> > - "DPLL 2",
> > - "DPLL 3",
> > +static const struct intel_shared_dpll_funcs hsw_ddi_spll_funcs = {
> > + .enable = hsw_ddi_spll_enable,
> > + .disable = hsw_ddi_spll_disable,
> > + .get_hw_state = hsw_ddi_spll_get_hw_state,
> > };
> >
> > struct skl_dpll_regs {
> > @@ -634,26 +594,10 @@ out:
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > -static void skl_shared_dplls_init(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > -{
> > - int i;
> > -
> > - dev_priv->num_shared_dpll = 3;
> > -
> > - for (i = 0; i < dev_priv->num_shared_dpll; i++) {
> > - dev_priv->shared_dplls[i].id = i;
> > - dev_priv->shared_dplls[i].name = skl_ddi_pll_names[i];
> > - dev_priv->shared_dplls[i].disable = skl_ddi_pll_disable;
> > - dev_priv->shared_dplls[i].enable = skl_ddi_pll_enable;
> > - dev_priv->shared_dplls[i].get_hw_state =
> > - skl_ddi_pll_get_hw_state;
> > - }
> > -}
> > -
> > -static const char * const bxt_ddi_pll_names[] = {
> > - "PORT PLL A",
> > - "PORT PLL B",
> > - "PORT PLL C",
> > +static const struct intel_shared_dpll_funcs skl_ddi_pll_funcs = {
> > + .enable = skl_ddi_pll_enable,
> > + .disable = skl_ddi_pll_disable,
> > + .get_hw_state = skl_ddi_pll_get_hw_state,
> > };
> >
> > static void bxt_ddi_pll_enable(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > @@ -838,34 +782,17 @@ out:
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > -static void bxt_shared_dplls_init(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > -{
> > - int i;
> > -
> > - dev_priv->num_shared_dpll = 3;
> > -
> > - for (i = 0; i < dev_priv->num_shared_dpll; i++) {
> > - dev_priv->shared_dplls[i].id = i;
> > - dev_priv->shared_dplls[i].name = bxt_ddi_pll_names[i];
> > - dev_priv->shared_dplls[i].disable = bxt_ddi_pll_disable;
> > - dev_priv->shared_dplls[i].enable = bxt_ddi_pll_enable;
> > - dev_priv->shared_dplls[i].get_hw_state =
> > - bxt_ddi_pll_get_hw_state;
> > - }
> > -}
> > +static const struct intel_shared_dpll_funcs bxt_ddi_pll_funcs = {
> > + .enable = bxt_ddi_pll_enable,
> > + .disable = bxt_ddi_pll_disable,
> > + .get_hw_state = bxt_ddi_pll_get_hw_state,
> > +};
> >
> > static void intel_ddi_pll_init(struct drm_device *dev)
> > {
> > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
> > uint32_t val = I915_READ(LCPLL_CTL);
> >
> > - if (IS_SKYLAKE(dev) || IS_KABYLAKE(dev))
> > - skl_shared_dplls_init(dev_priv);
> > - else if (IS_BROXTON(dev))
> > - bxt_shared_dplls_init(dev_priv);
> > - else
> > - hsw_shared_dplls_init(dev_priv);
> > -
> > if (IS_SKYLAKE(dev) || IS_KABYLAKE(dev)) {
> > int cdclk_freq;
> >
> > @@ -893,16 +820,72 @@ static void intel_ddi_pll_init(struct drm_device *dev)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > +struct dpll_info {
> > + const char *name;
> > + const int id;
> > + const struct intel_shared_dpll_funcs *funcs;
> > +};
> > +
> Seems shared_dplls[i].id == i, so that could be removed.

There are places in the code that assume those are equal. I considered not
including the id, but concluded that having the id and a WARN_ON() in
intel_shared_dpll_init() documents that assumption better.

I think it would be better to remove that assumption, but that require changes
to intel_atomic_state and users. But I think it would be nice if we could have a
per-DPLL state object.

> If you also move name to funcs you could kill this struct.

In a later patch I add a flags field to this struct. I guess I could move that
to funcs too, but then we need to come up with a better name for that struct.
"funcs" starts to sound wrong.

IMO having that extra struct is fine, so I rather let things settle first and
then do another round of clean ups. But if that is a no-go, I can re-spin.

Thanks,
Ander