From: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
To: Paulo Zanoni <przanoni@gmail.com>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] drm/i915: add functions to disable and restore LCPLL
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 16:26:42 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130718232641.GC4418@bwidawsk.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1373649582-19618-7-git-send-email-przanoni@gmail.com>
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 02:19:41PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> From: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
>
> For now there are no callers, but these functions are going to be
> needed for the code that allows Package C8+. Other future features may
> also require this code.
>
The thing that's missing from the patches is any sort of assertions
about things being on before the disable sequence. Is this something we
don't need to address?
> Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h | 7 +++
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 95 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h | 3 ++
> 3 files changed, 105 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
> index be6164f..8e5a5ec 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
> @@ -4930,7 +4930,14 @@
> #define LCPLL_CLK_FREQ_450 (0<<26)
> #define LCPLL_CD_CLOCK_DISABLE (1<<25)
> #define LCPLL_CD2X_CLOCK_DISABLE (1<<23)
> +#define LCPLL_POWER_DOWN_ALLOW (1<<22)
> #define LCPLL_CD_SOURCE_FCLK (1<<21)
> +#define LCPLL_CD_SOURCE_FCLK_DONE (1<<19)
Hmm... the doc I am looking at says
> +
> +#define D_COMP (MCHBAR_MIRROR_BASE_SNB + 0x5F0C)
> +#define D_COMP_RCOMP_IN_PROGRESS (1<<9)
> +#define D_COMP_COMP_FORCE (1<<8)
> +#define D_COMP_COMP_DISABLE (1<<0)
>
> /* Pipe WM_LINETIME - watermark line time */
> #define PIPE_WM_LINETIME_A 0x45270
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> index 059c9a8..ffb08bf 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> @@ -5922,6 +5922,101 @@ static bool ironlake_get_pipe_config(struct intel_crtc *crtc,
> return true;
> }
>
> +/*
> + * This function implements pieces of two sequences from BSpec:
> + * - Sequence for display software to disable LCPLL
> + * - Sequence for display software to allow package C8+
> + * The steps implemented here are just the steps that actually touch the LCPLL
> + * register. Callers should take care of disabling all the display engine
> + * functions, doing the mode unset, fixing interrupts, etc.
> + */
> +void hsw_disable_lcpll(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> + bool switch_to_fclk, bool allow_power_down)
> +{
> + uint32_t val;
> +
> + val = I915_READ(LCPLL_CTL);
> +
> + if (switch_to_fclk) {
> + val |= LCPLL_CD_SOURCE_FCLK;
> + I915_WRITE(LCPLL_CTL, val);
> + POSTING_READ(LCPLL_CTL);
> +
> + udelay(1);
> +
> + val = I915_READ(LCPLL_CTL);
> + if (!(val & LCPLL_CD_SOURCE_FCLK_DONE))
> + DRM_ERROR("Switching to FCLK failed\n");
wait_for_us(..., 1)?
> + }
> +
> + val |= LCPLL_PLL_DISABLE;
> + I915_WRITE(LCPLL_CTL, val);
> + POSTING_READ(LCPLL_CTL);
> +
> + if (wait_for((I915_READ(LCPLL_CTL) & LCPLL_PLL_LOCK) == 0, 1))
> + DRM_ERROR("LCPLL still locked\n");
> +
> + val = I915_READ(D_COMP);
> + val |= D_COMP_COMP_DISABLE;
> + I915_WRITE(D_COMP, val);
> + POSTING_READ(D_COMP);
> +
> + udelay(2);
ndelay(100)?
> +
> + val = I915_READ(D_COMP);
> + if (val & D_COMP_RCOMP_IN_PROGRESS)
> + DRM_ERROR("D_COMP RCOMP still in progress\n");
wait_for(..., 1)?
> +
> + if (allow_power_down) {
> + val = I915_READ(LCPLL_CTL);
> + val |= LCPLL_POWER_DOWN_ALLOW;
> + I915_WRITE(LCPLL_CTL, val);
> + POSTING_READ(LCPLL_CTL);
> + }
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Fully restores LCPLL, disallowing power down and switching back to LCPLL
> + * source.
> + */
> +void hsw_restore_lcpll(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> +{
> + uint32_t val;
> +
> + val = I915_READ(LCPLL_CTL);
> +
I think we could potentially exit early here if the PLL is already
locked, and we're on CDclk. And indeed, I've already seen this case
occur, but I'm not sure I will ever see that case again.
> + if (val & LCPLL_POWER_DOWN_ALLOW) {
> + val &= ~LCPLL_POWER_DOWN_ALLOW;
> + I915_WRITE(LCPLL_CTL, val);
> + }
> +
> + val = I915_READ(D_COMP);
> + val |= D_COMP_COMP_FORCE;
> + val &= ~D_COMP_COMP_DISABLE;
> + I915_WRITE(D_COMP, val);
> +
I think you need a posting read here. I am not sure we're allowed to
read LCPLL_CTL until we know the write has landed.
> + val = I915_READ(LCPLL_CTL);
> + val &= ~LCPLL_PLL_DISABLE;
> + I915_WRITE(LCPLL_CTL, val);
> + POSTING_READ(LCPLL_CTL);
^ unnecessary POSTING_READ - but meh
> +
> + if (wait_for(I915_READ(LCPLL_CTL) & LCPLL_PLL_LOCK, 5))
> + DRM_ERROR("LCPLL not locked yet\n");
> +
> + if (val & LCPLL_CD_SOURCE_FCLK) {
> + val = I915_READ(LCPLL_CTL);
> + val &= ~LCPLL_CD_SOURCE_FCLK;
> + I915_WRITE(LCPLL_CTL, val);
> + POSTING_READ(LCPLL_CTL);
> +
> + udelay(1);
> +
> + val = I915_READ(LCPLL_CTL);
> + if (val & LCPLL_CD_SOURCE_FCLK_DONE)
> + DRM_ERROR("Switching back to LCPLL failed\n");
> + }
> +}
> +
> static void haswell_modeset_global_resources(struct drm_device *dev)
> {
> bool enable = false;
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> index 5dfc1a0..15989d1 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> @@ -832,5 +832,8 @@ extern bool intel_set_cpu_fifo_underrun_reporting(struct drm_device *dev,
> extern bool intel_set_pch_fifo_underrun_reporting(struct drm_device *dev,
> enum transcoder pch_transcoder,
> bool enable);
> +extern void hsw_disable_lcpll(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> + bool switch_to_fclk, bool allow_power_down);
> +extern void hsw_restore_lcpll(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
>
> #endif /* __INTEL_DRV_H__ */
I'm a bit torn as to whether or not it makes sense to extract the pure
LCPLL disable from hsw_disable_lcpll. Did you think about this, could
you explain the reason you decided against it? (I'm a bit partial since
that was the way I had written it).
Does it every make sense to switch to fclk and not allow_power_down?
--
Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-07-18 23:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-07-12 17:19 [PATCH 0/7] HSW/LPT clocking code additional sequences Paulo Zanoni
2013-07-12 17:19 ` [PATCH 1/7] drm/i915: remove SDV support from lpt_pch_init_refclk Paulo Zanoni
2013-07-13 5:11 ` Ben Widawsky
2013-07-12 17:19 ` [PATCH 2/7] drm/i915: extract FDI mPHY functions from lpt_init_pch_refclk Paulo Zanoni
2013-07-18 21:51 ` Paulo Zanoni
2013-07-12 17:19 ` [PATCH 3/7] drm/i915: extract lpt_enable_clkout_dp " Paulo Zanoni
2013-07-19 6:54 ` Daniel Vetter
2013-07-12 17:19 ` [PATCH 4/7] drm/i915: extend lpt_enable_clkout_dp Paulo Zanoni
2013-07-18 22:40 ` Ben Widawsky
2013-07-19 15:04 ` Paulo Zanoni
2013-07-19 21:53 ` [PATCH 1/5] " Paulo Zanoni
2013-07-12 17:19 ` [PATCH 5/7] drm/i915: disable CLKOUT_DP when it's not needed Paulo Zanoni
2013-07-12 18:23 ` Daniel Vetter
2013-07-12 18:24 ` Paulo Zanoni
2013-07-18 22:54 ` Ben Widawsky
2013-07-19 21:54 ` [PATCH 2/5] " Paulo Zanoni
2013-07-12 17:19 ` [PATCH 6/7] drm/i915: add functions to disable and restore LCPLL Paulo Zanoni
2013-07-18 21:53 ` Paulo Zanoni
2013-07-18 23:26 ` Ben Widawsky [this message]
2013-07-18 23:33 ` Ben Widawsky
2013-07-19 16:57 ` Paulo Zanoni
2013-07-19 18:22 ` Paulo Zanoni
2013-07-19 21:56 ` [PATCH 3/5] " Paulo Zanoni
2013-07-19 21:58 ` [PATCH 5/5] drm/i915: add HAS_LP_PCH check Paulo Zanoni
2013-07-22 17:10 ` Ben Widawsky
2013-07-22 22:44 ` Paulo Zanoni
2013-07-12 17:19 ` [PATCH 7/7] drm/i915: add some assertions to hsw_disable_lcpll Paulo Zanoni
2013-07-18 23:32 ` Ben Widawsky
2013-07-19 18:42 ` Paulo Zanoni
2013-07-18 23:33 ` [PATCH 0/7] HSW/LPT clocking code additional sequences Ben Widawsky
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=20130718232641.GC4418@bwidawsk.net \
--to=ben@bwidawsk.net \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com \
--cc=przanoni@gmail.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox