From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (gabe.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C51D5C4708D for ; Wed, 7 Dec 2022 21:35:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A64C10E420; Wed, 7 Dec 2022 21:35:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7B9410E420 for ; Wed, 7 Dec 2022 21:35:28 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1670448928; x=1701984928; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=6kwxAKc86TnxZNM4B33XAyoqO8EZOUMmfsZlEcJ1Yig=; b=Gr+A9dNqzBenYNM1D0CzWF2PGBIkEmMpD6/OqpaTB09xsfE9wuZC/B0/ ScrMc0XFwdPgs6G9gaTewdrTfc2TmnGJKGtPRob/ZRkTvXS9oHvwEVSPj D6NMQeNFOhKR9sUJs89kHpfkohHEX6rWEHFSMOuhxK1IAdwQEpb9BbLdS S+ykeRu8NrDYbqtliLUcGgvKQ9r5hhH5nhg84AKRwf3v/jl8XDV6U021k nANZ6DFLXwa2jC5q4NsiHq09c8qxYhnD1OO5Gj0vI9csNJJlImazBer+f dJoGdlFgS4fAEDQcBonV2PojT90K+5aTzUC4j0YldV/+X2qv+k+FkL5md A==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10554"; a="344051758" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.96,225,1665471600"; d="scan'208";a="344051758" Received: from orsmga006.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.51]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Dec 2022 13:35:28 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10554"; a="624451380" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.96,225,1665471600"; d="scan'208";a="624451380" Received: from stinkpipe.fi.intel.com (HELO stinkbox) ([10.237.72.191]) by orsmga006.jf.intel.com with SMTP; 07 Dec 2022 13:35:25 -0800 Received: by stinkbox (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 07 Dec 2022 23:35:24 +0200 Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2022 23:35:24 +0200 From: Ville =?iso-8859-1?Q?Syrj=E4l=E4?= To: "Navare, Manasi" Message-ID: References: <20221202134412.21943-1-ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> <20221202134412.21943-3-ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> <20221205203425.GA1209420@mdnavare-mobl1.jf.intel.com> <20221207210515.GA1306246@mdnavare-mobl1.jf.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20221207210515.GA1306246@mdnavare-mobl1.jf.intel.com> X-Patchwork-Hint: comment Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/4] drm/i915/vrr: Fix guardband/vblank exit length calculation for adl+ X-BeenThere: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Intel graphics driver community testing & development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-gfx" On Wed, Dec 07, 2022 at 01:05:15PM -0800, Navare, Manasi wrote: > On Wed, Dec 07, 2022 at 05:10:54PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 12:34:25PM -0800, Navare, Manasi wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 02, 2022 at 03:44:10PM +0200, Ville Syrjala wrote: > > > > From: Ville Syrjälä > > > > > > > > We are miscalculating both the guardband value, and the resulting > > > > vblank exit length on adl+. This means that our start of vblank > > > > (double buffered register latch point) is incorrect, and we also > > > > think that it's not where it actually is (hence vblank evasion/etc. > > > > may not work properly). Fix up the calculations to match the real > > > > hardware behaviour (as reverse engineered by intel_display_poller). > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä > > > > --- > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vrr.c | 6 +++--- > > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vrr.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vrr.c > > > > index 6655dd2c1684..753e7b211708 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vrr.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vrr.c > > > > @@ -78,10 +78,10 @@ static int intel_vrr_vblank_exit_length(const struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_stat > > > > struct intel_crtc *crtc = to_intel_crtc(crtc_state->uapi.crtc); > > > > struct drm_i915_private *i915 = to_i915(crtc->base.dev); > > > > > > > > - /* The hw imposes the extra scanline before frame start */ > > > > if (DISPLAY_VER(i915) >= 13) > > > > - return crtc_state->vrr.guardband + crtc_state->framestart_delay + 1; > > > > + return crtc_state->vrr.guardband; > > > > > > This makes sense since with guardband, there is no framestart delay > > > > framestart delay is still a thing. But it's not something that > > affects how the hardware interprets the guardband value. > > > > > > > > > else > > > > + /* The hw imposes the extra scanline before frame start */ > > > > return crtc_state->vrr.pipeline_full + crtc_state->framestart_delay + 1; > > > > } > > > > > > > > @@ -151,7 +151,7 @@ intel_vrr_compute_config(struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state, > > > > * number of scan lines. Assuming 0 for no DSB. > > > > */ > > > > crtc_state->vrr.guardband = > > > > - crtc_state->vrr.vmin - adjusted_mode->crtc_vdisplay; > > > > + crtc_state->vrr.vmin + 1 - adjusted_mode->crtc_vdisplay; > > > > > > Why are we adding + 1 here? The bspec says guardband should be : > > > Guardband = Vmin - Vactive - Window2 where in our case Window2 = 0 > > > If we need that + 1 to get this working, then perhaps we need to update > > > Bspec? > > > > flipline is what actaully determines the start of vblank, and > > 'flipline>=vmin+1' always. > > Flipline would be always >=vmin as per the bspec, Not sure where in bspec you see that. All I see is >vmin, and it even says you et an extra line if you try to set them equal. Pretty sure I verified that behaviour on the hw on icl/tgl since I put the extra -1 to the vmin calculation. Though I haven't actually tested it on adl+. > have we tried with > that or if that definitely doesnt work then we need to have this changed > in the bspec. > > Either way if this is the only value that works then with this change > added to bspec: > > Reviewed-by: Manasi Navare > > Manasi > > > > > > > > > I kind of want to see if this is still breaking if we dont have that + > > > 1? > > > > Without it start of vblank happens one line later than where we want it > > to happen. > > > > > > > > Manasi > > > > > > > } else { > > > > crtc_state->vrr.pipeline_full = > > > > min(255, crtc_state->vrr.vmin - adjusted_mode->crtc_vdisplay - > > > > -- > > > > 2.37.4 > > > > > > > > -- > > Ville Syrjälä > > Intel -- Ville Syrjälä Intel