From: "Lisovskiy, Stanislav" <stanislav.lisovskiy@intel.com>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Recalculate CDCLK if plane scaling ratio changes
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2022 11:55:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220112095559.GA23873@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87wnj66x1w.fsf@intel.com>
On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 06:45:31PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2022, Stanislav Lisovskiy <stanislav.lisovskiy@intel.com> wrote:
> > Currently we only recalculate CDCLK if active plane mask changes
> > or if we do a full modeset, however according to BSpec
> > required Dbuf bandwidth calculations also depend on pipe/plane
> > scaling ratio, which means that CDCLK must be recalculated
> > everytime plane scaling ratio changes, because it affects
> > display buffer bandwidth requirements.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Lisovskiy <stanislav.lisovskiy@intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c | 63 +++++++++++++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> > index bf7ce684dd8e..2c616348e993 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> > @@ -7499,13 +7499,65 @@ static int intel_bigjoiner_add_affected_planes(struct intel_atomic_state *state)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > +static bool scaling_affects_cdclk(struct intel_plane_state *old_plane_state,
> > + struct intel_plane_state *new_plane_state)
> > +{
> > + int old_src_w = drm_rect_width(&old_plane_state->uapi.src) >> 16;
> > + int old_src_h = drm_rect_height(&old_plane_state->uapi.src) >> 16;
> > + int old_dst_w = drm_rect_width(&old_plane_state->uapi.dst);
> > + int old_dst_h = drm_rect_height(&old_plane_state->uapi.dst);
> > + int new_src_w = drm_rect_width(&new_plane_state->uapi.src) >> 16;
> > + int new_src_h = drm_rect_height(&new_plane_state->uapi.src) >> 16;
> > + int new_dst_w = drm_rect_width(&new_plane_state->uapi.dst);
> > + int new_dst_h = drm_rect_height(&new_plane_state->uapi.dst);
> > + int old_hscale_ratio, new_hscale_ratio;
> > + int old_vscale_ratio, new_vscale_ratio;
> > +
> > + if (needs_scaling(old_plane_state) != needs_scaling(new_plane_state))
> > + return true;
> > +
> > + if (!old_dst_w || !old_dst_h)
> > + return true;
> > +
> > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("old_dst_w %d old_dst_h %d\n", old_dst_w, old_dst_h);
> > +
> > + old_hscale_ratio = DIV_ROUND_UP(old_src_w, old_dst_w);
> > + old_vscale_ratio = DIV_ROUND_UP(old_src_h, old_dst_h);
> > +
> > + if (!new_dst_w || !new_dst_h)
> > + return true;
> > +
> > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("new_dst_w %d new_dst_h %d\n", new_dst_w, new_dst_h);
> > +
> > + new_hscale_ratio = DIV_ROUND_UP(new_src_w, new_dst_w);
> > + new_vscale_ratio = DIV_ROUND_UP(new_src_h, new_dst_h);
> > +
> > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("new_hscale_ratio %d new_vscale_ratio %d "
> > + "old_hscale_ratio %d old_vscale_ratio %d\n",
> > + new_hscale_ratio, new_vscale_ratio,
> > + old_hscale_ratio, old_vscale_ratio);
>
> All of the debug logging seem excessive? Also, please use drm_dbg_atomic
> or drm_dbg_kms instead of DRM_DEBUG_KMS for the ones that need to stay.
Yes, I should probably leave only message repoting that cdclk has to be
recalculated. Otherwise indeed seems excessive - was just using it for
debugging.
Stan
>
> BR,
> Jani.
>
> > +
> > + if ((old_hscale_ratio != new_hscale_ratio) ||
> > + (old_vscale_ratio != new_vscale_ratio)) {
> > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Scaling ratios changed from %dx%d"
> > + " to %dx%d - need cdclk recalc\n",
> > + old_hscale_ratio, old_vscale_ratio,
> > + new_hscale_ratio, new_vscale_ratio);
> > + return true;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return false;
> > +}
> > +
> > static int intel_atomic_check_planes(struct intel_atomic_state *state)
> > {
> > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(state->base.dev);
> > struct intel_crtc_state *old_crtc_state, *new_crtc_state;
> > struct intel_plane_state *plane_state;
> > + struct intel_plane_state *old_plane_state;
> > struct intel_plane *plane;
> > struct intel_crtc *crtc;
> > + bool need_cdclk_calc = false;
> > int i, ret;
> >
> > ret = icl_add_linked_planes(state);
> > @@ -7516,7 +7568,7 @@ static int intel_atomic_check_planes(struct intel_atomic_state *state)
> > if (ret)
> > return ret;
> >
> > - for_each_new_intel_plane_in_state(state, plane, plane_state, i) {
> > + for_each_oldnew_intel_plane_in_state(state, plane, old_plane_state, plane_state, i) {
> > ret = intel_plane_atomic_check(state, plane);
> > if (ret) {
> > drm_dbg_atomic(&dev_priv->drm,
> > @@ -7524,6 +7576,9 @@ static int intel_atomic_check_planes(struct intel_atomic_state *state)
> > plane->base.base.id, plane->base.name);
> > return ret;
> > }
> > +
> > + if (scaling_affects_cdclk(old_plane_state, plane_state))
> > + need_cdclk_calc = true;
> > }
> >
> > for_each_oldnew_intel_crtc_in_state(state, crtc, old_crtc_state,
> > @@ -7539,18 +7594,20 @@ static int intel_atomic_check_planes(struct intel_atomic_state *state)
> > * the planes' minimum cdclk calculation. Add such planes
> > * to the state before we compute the minimum cdclk.
> > */
> > - if (!active_planes_affects_min_cdclk(dev_priv))
> > + if (!active_planes_affects_min_cdclk(dev_priv) && !need_cdclk_calc)
> > continue;
> >
> > old_active_planes = old_crtc_state->active_planes & ~BIT(PLANE_CURSOR);
> > new_active_planes = new_crtc_state->active_planes & ~BIT(PLANE_CURSOR);
> >
> > - if (hweight8(old_active_planes) == hweight8(new_active_planes))
> > + if ((hweight8(old_active_planes) == hweight8(new_active_planes)) && !need_cdclk_calc)
> > continue;
> >
> > ret = intel_crtc_add_planes_to_state(state, crtc, new_active_planes);
> > if (ret)
> > return ret;
> > +
> > +
> > }
> >
> > return 0;
>
> --
> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-01-12 9:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-01-11 16:08 [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Recalculate CDCLK if plane scaling ratio changes Stanislav Lisovskiy
2022-01-11 16:45 ` Jani Nikula
2022-01-12 9:55 ` Lisovskiy, Stanislav [this message]
2022-01-11 18:39 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for " Patchwork
2022-01-11 18:55 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2022-01-12 0:26 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure " Patchwork
2022-01-12 13:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] " Ville Syrjälä
2022-01-12 14:39 ` Lisovskiy, Stanislav
2022-01-12 14:50 ` Ville Syrjälä
2022-01-13 7:29 ` Lisovskiy, Stanislav
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2022-01-12 13:06 Stanislav Lisovskiy
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=20220112095559.GA23873@intel.com \
--to=stanislav.lisovskiy@intel.com \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=jani.nikula@linux.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