From: "Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
To: "Pandiyan, Dhinakaran" <dhinakaran.pandiyan@intel.com>
Cc: "intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org"
<intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"Zanoni, Paulo R" <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>,
"Vivi, Rodrigo" <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] drm/i915: Fix up CNL cdclk related limits
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 21:11:12 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170710181112.GN12629@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1499709242.4305.14.camel@dk-H97M-D3H>
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 05:34:11PM +0000, Pandiyan, Dhinakaran wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 16:02 +0300, ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com wrote:
> > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
> >
> > Follow the GLK path when computing cdclk and related limits. CNL
> > pipes also produce two pixels per clock, so that's what we should
> > really use. However for the purposes of pixel rate calculations we
> > will assume one pixel per clock to keep the voltage higher, at least
> > until the missing voltage scaling for DDI clocks is implemented.
> >
>
> Does the lack of correct voltage scaling implementation affect only
> intel_compute_max_dotclk()? i.e., allowing a pixel rate of
> 2*max_cdclk_freq? Or does it mean cnl_calc_cdclk() cannot take into
> account pixel_rate <= 2*cdclk_freq for any frequency?
>
>
> With this patch,
> bdw_adjust_min_pipe_pixel_rate() compares pixel_rate to 2*cdclk
> cnl_calc_cdclk() compares pixel_rate to 1*cdclk.
> Isn't that a discrepancy?
Hmm. Yeah. I suppose I should just squash this with patch 2/3. My
original intention for this separate patch was to respect the 2x
limit rather than the 1x limit. But since we couldn't do that I
suppose the justification for this patch has pretty much gone
away, and as you point out, it just leads to a mess.
The combination of patches 1/3+2/3 should still do the right thing
because we no longer use the pixel rate in the audio workarounds.
>
>
> > For the HBR2 vs. audio issue the limit should more correctly be 336
> > MHz, but the GLK limit of 316.8 MHz works just as well and results
> > in picking at least 336 MHz. Also toss in some related w/a numbers.
>
> In this case, _adjust_min_pipe_pixel_rate() will return pixel_rate as
> 633.6 MHz, followed by cnl_calc_cdclk() returning 528 MHz cdclk. But,
> isn't the correct workaround cdclk 336 MHz?
>
>
> >
> > v2: Assume 1 pixel per clock for the purposes of max pixel rate
> > calculation until DDI clock voltage scaling is handled
> >
> > Cc: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
> > Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> > Cc: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan@intel.com>
> > Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_cdclk.c | 20 ++++++++++++++------
> > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_cdclk.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_cdclk.c
> > index 1241e5891b29..4b8eb6a7d852 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_cdclk.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_cdclk.c
> > @@ -1752,12 +1752,13 @@ static int bdw_adjust_min_pipe_pixel_rate(struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state,
> > crtc_state->has_audio &&
> > crtc_state->port_clock >= 540000 &&
> > crtc_state->lane_count == 4) {
> > - if (IS_CANNONLAKE(dev_priv))
> > - pixel_rate = max(316800, pixel_rate);
> > - else if (IS_GEMINILAKE(dev_priv))
> > + if (IS_CANNONLAKE(dev_priv) || IS_GEMINILAKE(dev_priv)) {
> > + /* Display WA #1145: glk,cnl */
> > pixel_rate = max(2 * 316800, pixel_rate);
> > - else
> > + } else if (IS_GEN9(dev_priv) || IS_BROADWELL(dev_priv)) {
> > + /* Display WA #1144: skl,bxt */
> > pixel_rate = max(432000, pixel_rate);
> > + }
> > }
> >
> > /* According to BSpec, "The CD clock frequency must be at least twice
> > @@ -1766,7 +1767,7 @@ static int bdw_adjust_min_pipe_pixel_rate(struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state,
> > * two pixels per clock.
> > */
> > if (crtc_state->has_audio && INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 9) {
> > - if (IS_GEMINILAKE(dev_priv))
> > + if (IS_CANNONLAKE(dev_priv) || IS_GEMINILAKE(dev_priv))
> > pixel_rate = max(2 * 2 * 96000, pixel_rate);
> > else
> > pixel_rate = max(2 * 96000, pixel_rate);
> > @@ -1999,7 +2000,14 @@ 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))
> > + if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 10)
> > + /*
> > + * FIXME: Allow '2 * max_cdclk_freq'
> > + * once DDI clock voltage requirements are
> > + * handled correctly.
> > + */
> > + return max_cdclk_freq;
> > + else if (IS_GEMINILAKE(dev_priv))
> > /*
> > * FIXME: Limiting to 99% as a temporary workaround. See
> > * glk_calc_cdclk() for details.
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-07-10 18:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-07 10:24 [PATCH 1/3] drm/i915: Fix up CNL cdclk related limits ville.syrjala
2017-07-07 10:24 ` [PATCH 2/3] drm/i915: Track minimum acceptable cdclk instead of "minimum dotclock" ville.syrjala
2017-07-07 18:28 ` Ville Syrjälä
2017-07-10 13:02 ` [PATCH v2 " ville.syrjala
2017-07-07 10:24 ` [PATCH 3/3] drm/i915: Consolidate max_cdclk_freq check in intel_crtc_compute_min_cdclk() ville.syrjala
2017-07-07 11:13 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for series starting with [1/3] drm/i915: Fix up CNL cdclk related limits Patchwork
2017-07-07 17:54 ` [PATCH 1/3] " Rodrigo Vivi
2017-07-07 18:24 ` Ville Syrjälä
2017-07-07 18:33 ` Pandiyan, Dhinakaran
2017-07-10 13:02 ` [PATCH v2 " ville.syrjala
2017-07-10 17:34 ` Pandiyan, Dhinakaran
2017-07-10 18:11 ` Ville Syrjälä [this message]
2017-07-10 18:36 ` Pandiyan, Dhinakaran
2017-07-10 17:34 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2017-07-10 17:55 ` Ville Syrjälä
2017-07-10 13:21 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for series starting with [v2,1/3] drm/i915: Fix up CNL cdclk related limits (rev3) 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=20170710181112.GN12629@intel.com \
--to=ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dhinakaran.pandiyan@intel.com \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com \
--cc=rodrigo.vivi@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox