From: "Saarinen, Jani" <jani.saarinen@intel.com>
To: "Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Cc: "intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org" <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Clamp linetime wm to <64usec
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 14:15:48 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5169160f469d48d3b0a84aa2ef7fcb21@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200626140918.GB6112@intel.com>
Hi,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
> Sent: perjantai 26. kesäkuuta 2020 17.09
> To: Saarinen, Jani <jani.saarinen@intel.com>
> Cc: Lisovskiy, Stanislav <stanislav.lisovskiy@intel.com>; intel-
> gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Clamp linetime wm to <64usec
>
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 02:03:23PM +0000, Saarinen, Jani wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Intel-gfx <intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org> On Behalf
> > > Of Ville Syrjälä
> > > Sent: perjantai 26. kesäkuuta 2020 16.47
> > > To: Lisovskiy, Stanislav <stanislav.lisovskiy@intel.com>
> > > Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> > > Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Clamp linetime wm to
> > > <64usec
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 12:16:06PM +0300, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 11:00:03PM +0300, Ville Syrjala wrote:
> > > > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > The linetime watermark is a 9 bit value, which gives us a
> > > > > maximum linetime of just below 64 usec. If the linetime exceeds
> > > > > that value we currently just discard the high bits and program
> > > > > the rest into the register, which angers the state checker.
> > > > >
> > > > > To avoid that let's just clamp the value to the max. I believe
> > > > > it should be perfectly fine to program a smaller linetime wm
> > > > > than strictly required, just means the hardware may fetch data
> > > > > sooner than strictly needed. We are further reassured by the
> > > > > fact that with DRRS the spec tells us to program the smaller of
> > > > > the two linetimes corresponding to the two refresh rates.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cc: Stanislav Lisovskiy <stanislav.lisovskiy@intel.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c | 18
> > > > > ++++++++++++------
> > > > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> > > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> > > > > index a11bb675f9b3..d486d675166f 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> > > > > @@ -12581,12 +12581,15 @@ static u16 hsw_linetime_wm(const
> > > > > struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state) {
> > > > > const struct drm_display_mode *adjusted_mode =
> > > > > &crtc_state->hw.adjusted_mode;
> > > > > + int linetime_wm;
> > > > >
> > > > > if (!crtc_state->hw.enable)
> > > > > return 0;
> > > > >
> > > > > - return DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(adjusted_mode->crtc_htotal * 1000 *
> > > 8,
> > > > > - adjusted_mode-
> > > >crtc_clock);
> > > > > + linetime_wm = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(adjusted_mode->crtc_htotal *
> > > 1000 * 8,
> > > > > +
> > > adjusted_mode->crtc_clock);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + return min(linetime_wm, 0x1ff);
> > > >
> > > > Are we actually doing the right thing here? I just mean that we
> > > > get value
> > > > 543 in the bug because pixel rate is 14874 which doesn't seem correct.
> > >
> > > As explained in the commit msg programming this to lower than
> > > necessary value should be totally fine. It just won't be optimal.
> > >
> > > The values in the jira (was there an actual gitlab bug for this
> > > btw?) look quite sensible
> > No, there is no gtilab issue as no tiled display at CI.
>
> Can't see what this has to do with tiled displays. I guess we're talking about some
> specific display that just happens to have that super slow mode?
Perhaps, issue where seen in Dell UP2715K.
>
> >
> > > to me. Some kind of low res 848xsomething mode with dotclock of
> > > 14.874 Mhz, which gives us that linetime of ~68 usec.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Stan
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > static u16 hsw_ips_linetime_wm(const struct intel_crtc_state
> > > > > *crtc_state, @@ -12594,12 +12597,15 @@ static u16
> > > > > hsw_ips_linetime_wm(const struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state, {
> > > > > const struct drm_display_mode *adjusted_mode =
> > > > > &crtc_state->hw.adjusted_mode;
> > > > > + int linetime_wm;
> > > > >
> > > > > if (!crtc_state->hw.enable)
> > > > > return 0;
> > > > >
> > > > > - return DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(adjusted_mode->crtc_htotal * 1000 *
> > > 8,
> > > > > - cdclk_state-
> > > >logical.cdclk);
> > > > > + linetime_wm = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(adjusted_mode->crtc_htotal *
> > > 1000 * 8,
> > > > > +
> > > cdclk_state->logical.cdclk);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + return min(linetime_wm, 0x1ff);
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > static u16 skl_linetime_wm(const struct intel_crtc_state
> > > > > *crtc_state) @@ -12608,7 +12614,7 @@ static u16
> > > > > skl_linetime_wm(const
> > > struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state)
> > > > > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(crtc->base.dev);
> > > > > const struct drm_display_mode *adjusted_mode =
> > > > > &crtc_state->hw.adjusted_mode;
> > > > > - u16 linetime_wm;
> > > > > + int linetime_wm;
> > > > >
> > > > > if (!crtc_state->hw.enable)
> > > > > return 0;
> > > > > @@ -12620,7 +12626,7 @@ static u16 skl_linetime_wm(const struct
> > > intel_crtc_state *crtc_state)
> > > > > if (IS_GEN9_LP(dev_priv) && dev_priv->ipc_enabled)
> > > > > linetime_wm /= 2;
> > > > >
> > > > > - return linetime_wm;
> > > > > + return min(linetime_wm, 0x1ff);
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > static int hsw_compute_linetime_wm(struct intel_atomic_state
> > > > > *state,
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.26.2
> > > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ville Syrjälä
> > > Intel
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Intel-gfx mailing list
> > > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
>
> --
> Ville Syrjälä
> Intel
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-26 14:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-25 20:00 [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Clamp linetime wm to <64usec Ville Syrjala
2020-06-26 9:16 ` Lisovskiy, Stanislav
2020-06-26 13:46 ` Ville Syrjälä
2020-06-26 14:03 ` Saarinen, Jani
2020-06-26 14:09 ` Ville Syrjälä
2020-06-26 14:15 ` Saarinen, Jani [this message]
2020-06-26 15:13 ` Lisovskiy, Stanislav
2020-06-27 16:57 ` Ville Syrjälä
2020-06-29 8:24 ` Lisovskiy, Stanislav
2020-06-29 15:48 ` Ville Syrjälä
2020-06-29 16:20 ` Lisovskiy, Stanislav
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=5169160f469d48d3b0a84aa2ef7fcb21@intel.com \
--to=jani.saarinen@intel.com \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=ville.syrjala@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