Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/glk: limit pixel clock to 99% of cdclk workaround

From: Ander Conselvan De Oliveira <conselvan2@gmail.com>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/glk: limit pixel clock to 99% of cdclk workaround
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 11:21:19 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1491294079.3274.3.camel@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1491293753-12325-1-git-send-email-jani.nikula@intel.com>

On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 11:15 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> From: Madhav Chauhan <madhav.chauhan@intel.com>
> 
> As per BSPEC, valid cdclk values for glk are 79.2, 158.4, 316.8 Mhz.
> Practically we can achive only 99% of these cdclk values (HW team
> checking on this). So cdclk should be calculated for the given pixclk as
> per that otherwise it may lead to screen corruption for some scenarios.
> 
> v2: Rebased to new CDLCK code framework
> v3: Addressed review comments from Ander/Jani
>     - Add comment in code about 99% usage of CDCLK
>     - Calculate max dot clock as well with 99% limit
> v4 by Jani:
>     - drop superfluous whitespace change
>     - rewrite code comments to clarify
> 
> Cc: Ander Conselvan de Oliveira <ander.conselvan.de.oliveira@intel.com>
> Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Madhav Chauhan <madhav.chauhan@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_cdclk.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_cdclk.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_cdclk.c
> index dd3ad52b7dfe..763010f8ad89 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_cdclk.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_cdclk.c
> @@ -1071,9 +1071,15 @@ static int bxt_calc_cdclk(int max_pixclk)
>  
>  static int glk_calc_cdclk(int max_pixclk)
>  {
> -	if (max_pixclk > 2 * 158400)
> +	/*
> +	 * FIXME: Avoid using a pixel clock that is more than 99% of the cdclk
> +	 * as a temporary workaround. Use a higher cdclk instead. (Note that

Temporary workaround for what? Neither the comment nor the commit message
explicitly lists the scenario that triggers this issue.

With that fixed,

Reviewed-by: Ander Conselvan de Oliveira <conselvan2@gmail.com>

> +	 * intel_compute_max_dotclk() limits the max pixel clock to 99% of max
> +	 * cdclk.)
> +	 */
> +	if (max_pixclk > DIV_ROUND_UP(2 * 158400 * 99, 100))
>  		return 316800;
> -	else if (max_pixclk > 2 * 79200)
> +	else if (max_pixclk > DIV_ROUND_UP(2 * 79200 * 99, 100))
>  		return 158400;
>  	else
>  		return 79200;
> @@ -1664,7 +1670,11 @@ static int intel_compute_max_dotclk(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>  	int max_cdclk_freq = dev_priv->max_cdclk_freq;
>  
>  	if (IS_GEMINILAKE(dev_priv))
> -		return 2 * max_cdclk_freq;
> +		/*
> +		 * FIXME: Limiting to 99% as a temporary workaround. See
> +		 * glk_calc_cdclk() for details.
> +		 */
> +		return 2 * max_cdclk_freq * 99 / 100;
>  	else if (INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->gen >= 9 ||
>  		 IS_HASWELL(dev_priv) || IS_BROADWELL(dev_priv))
>  		return max_cdclk_freq;
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx