From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
To: "Kumar, Mahesh" <mahesh1.kumar@intel.com>,
intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: dinakaran.pandiyan@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/icl: remove port A/E lane sharing limitation.
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2018 12:03:24 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87h8qvbvo3.fsf@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <67188307-e11e-d2c5-0375-aac0d1408ad9@intel.com>
On Mon, 05 Feb 2018, "Kumar, Mahesh" <mahesh1.kumar@intel.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On 2/2/2018 6:26 PM, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Feb 2018, Mahesh Kumar <mahesh1.kumar@intel.com> wrote:
>>> Platforms before Gen11 were sharing lanes between port-A & port-E.
>>> This limitation is no more there.
>>>
>>> Changes since V1:
>>> - optimize the code (Shashank/Jani)
>>> - create helper function to get max lanes (ville)
>>> Changes since V2:
>>> - Include BIOS fail fix-up in same helper function (ville)
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mahesh Kumar <mahesh1.kumar@intel.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan@intel.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c | 71 +++++++++++++++++++---------------------
>>> 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c
>>> index cfcd9cb37d5d..ee9ba78d19c8 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c
>>> @@ -2842,39 +2842,44 @@ static bool intel_ddi_a_force_4_lanes(struct intel_digital_port *dport)
>>> return false;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static int
>>> +intel_ddi_max_lanes(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>>> + struct intel_digital_port *intel_dig_port)
>>> +{
>> Please ditch the dev_priv parameter and add:
>>
>> struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dport->base.base.dev);
> ok, sure.
>>
>>> + enum port port = intel_dig_port->base.port;
>>> + int max_lanes = 4;
>> Unnecessary initialization.
> for ports other than PORT_A/E will have max_lanes=4 that's the reason
> initializing it here, will fix the usages.
>>
>>> +
>>> + if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 11) {
>>> + return 4;
>> Please either set max_lanes = 4 here, or remove the else. On early
>> returns, you don't need the else. Having both is confusing.
> yes, agree, will remove the else
>>
>>> + } else if (port == PORT_A || port == PORT_E) {
>>> + if (I915_READ(DDI_BUF_CTL(PORT_A)) & DDI_A_4_LANES)
>>> + max_lanes = port == PORT_A ? 4 : 0;
>>> + else
>>> + /* Both A and E share 2 lanes */
>>> + max_lanes = 2;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * Some BIOS might fail to set this bit on port A if eDP
>>> + * wasn't lit up at boot. Force this bit set when needed
>>> + * so we use the proper lane count for our calculations.
>>> + */
>>> + if (intel_ddi_a_force_4_lanes(intel_dig_port)) {
>>> + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Forcing DDI_A_4_LANES for port A\n");
>>> + intel_dig_port->saved_port_bits |= DDI_A_4_LANES;
>>> + max_lanes = 4;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + return max_lanes;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> void intel_ddi_init(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, enum port port)
>>> {
>>> struct intel_digital_port *intel_dig_port;
>>> struct intel_encoder *intel_encoder;
>>> struct drm_encoder *encoder;
>>> bool init_hdmi, init_dp, init_lspcon = false;
>>> - int max_lanes;
>>>
>>> - if (I915_READ(DDI_BUF_CTL(PORT_A)) & DDI_A_4_LANES) {
>>> - switch (port) {
>>> - case PORT_A:
>>> - max_lanes = 4;
>>> - break;
>>> - case PORT_E:
>>> - max_lanes = 0;
>>> - break;
>>> - default:
>>> - max_lanes = 4;
>>> - break;
>>> - }
>>> - } else {
>>> - switch (port) {
>>> - case PORT_A:
>>> - max_lanes = 2;
>>> - break;
>>> - case PORT_E:
>>> - max_lanes = 2;
>>> - break;
>>> - default:
>>> - max_lanes = 4;
>>> - break;
>>> - }
>>> - }
>>>
>>> init_hdmi = (dev_priv->vbt.ddi_port_info[port].supports_dvi ||
>>> dev_priv->vbt.ddi_port_info[port].supports_hdmi);
>>> @@ -2954,19 +2959,7 @@ void intel_ddi_init(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, enum port port)
>>> MISSING_CASE(port);
>>> }
>>>
>>> - /*
>>> - * Some BIOS might fail to set this bit on port A if eDP
>>> - * wasn't lit up at boot. Force this bit set when needed
>>> - * so we use the proper lane count for our calculations.
>>> - */
>>> - if (intel_ddi_a_force_4_lanes(intel_dig_port)) {
>>> - DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Forcing DDI_A_4_LANES for port A\n");
>>> - intel_dig_port->saved_port_bits |= DDI_A_4_LANES;
>>> - max_lanes = 4;
>>> - }
>>> -
>>> intel_dig_port->dp.output_reg = INVALID_MMIO_REG;
>>> - intel_dig_port->max_lanes = max_lanes;
>>>
>>> intel_encoder->type = INTEL_OUTPUT_DDI;
>>> intel_encoder->power_domain = intel_port_to_power_domain(port);
>>> @@ -2974,6 +2967,8 @@ void intel_ddi_init(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, enum port port)
>>> intel_encoder->crtc_mask = (1 << 0) | (1 << 1) | (1 << 2);
>>> intel_encoder->cloneable = 0;
>>>
>>> + intel_dig_port->max_lanes = intel_ddi_max_lanes(dev_priv,
>>> + intel_dig_port);
>> Please keep this at the original location above.
> I moved this here because intel_encoder->port was not initialized in
> original location, will pass port along with intel_dig_port & move it to
> original location.
Right, so alternatively you could move all the intel_dig_port init to
the same place.
BR,
Jani.
> Thanks for review.
>
> -Mahesh
>>
>> BR,
>> Jani.
>>
>>> intel_infoframe_init(intel_dig_port);
>>>
>>> if (init_dp) {
>
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-02-05 10:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-02-02 12:21 [PATCH] drm/i915/icl: remove port A/E lane sharing limitation Mahesh Kumar
2018-02-02 12:40 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915/icl: remove port A/E lane sharing limitation. (rev2) Patchwork
2018-02-02 12:56 ` [PATCH] drm/i915/icl: remove port A/E lane sharing limitation Jani Nikula
2018-02-05 9:34 ` Kumar, Mahesh
2018-02-05 10:03 ` Jani Nikula [this message]
2018-02-02 13:42 ` ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: success for drm/i915/icl: remove port A/E lane sharing limitation. (rev2) Patchwork
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-01-30 9:21 [PATCH] drm/i915/icl: remove port A/E lane sharing limitation Mahesh Kumar
2018-01-30 19:52 ` Pandiyan, Dhinakaran
2018-01-30 20:13 ` Ville Syrjälä
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=87h8qvbvo3.fsf@intel.com \
--to=jani.nikula@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dinakaran.pandiyan@intel.com \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=mahesh1.kumar@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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).