From: "Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
To: "Navare, Manasi" <manasi.d.navare@intel.com>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 10/10] drm/i915: Change bigjoiner state tracking to use the pipe bitmask
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2022 09:31:19 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YgDKx8obYfeLKCAf@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220204235828.GA23624@labuser-Z97X-UD5H>
On Fri, Feb 04, 2022 at 03:58:29PM -0800, Navare, Manasi wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 08:38:23PM +0200, Ville Syrjala wrote:
> > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
> >
> > Get rid of the inflexible bigjoiner_linked_crtc pointer thing
> > and just track things as a bitmask of pipes instead. We can
> > also nuke the bigjoiner_slave boolean as the role of the pipe
> > can be determined from its position in the bitmask.
> >
> > It might be possible to nuke the bigjoiner boolean as well
> > if we make encoder.compute_config() do the bitmask assignment
> > directly for the master pipe. But for now I left that alone so
> > that encoer.compute_config() will just flag the state as needing
> > bigjoiner, and the intel_atomic_check_bigjoiner() is still
> > responsible for determining the bitmask. But that may have to change
> > as the encoder may be in the best position to determine how
> > exactly we should populate the bitmask.
> >
> > Most places that just looked at the single bigjoiner_linked_crtc
> > now iterate over the whole bitmask, eliminating the singular
> > slave pipe assumption.
>
> Okay so trying to understand the design here:
> For Pipe A + B Bigjoiner and C + D bigjoiner for example,
> bitmasks will be as below:
>
> A : 0011
> B: 0011
>
> C: 1100
> D: 1100
>
> Is this correct understanding? Because we would mark both the master pipe and slave pipe in a bitmask right?
Yes.
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> > .../gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_atomic_plane.c | 5 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_ddi.c | 12 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c | 305 ++++++++++++------
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.h | 2 +
> > .../drm/i915/display/intel_display_debugfs.c | 5 +-
> > .../drm/i915/display/intel_display_types.h | 7 +-
> > .../drm/i915/display/intel_plane_initial.c | 7 -
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vdsc.c | 43 ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vdsc.h | 1 -
> > 9 files changed, 227 insertions(+), 160 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_atomic_plane.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_atomic_plane.c
> > index 41d52889dfce..0e15fe908855 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_atomic_plane.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_atomic_plane.c
> > @@ -404,9 +404,10 @@ int intel_plane_atomic_check(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
> > intel_atomic_get_new_crtc_state(state, crtc);
> >
> > if (new_crtc_state && intel_crtc_is_bigjoiner_slave(new_crtc_state)) {
> > + struct intel_crtc *master_crtc =
> > + intel_master_crtc(new_crtc_state);
> > struct intel_plane *master_plane =
> > - intel_crtc_get_plane(new_crtc_state->bigjoiner_linked_crtc,
> > - plane->id);
> > + intel_crtc_get_plane(master_crtc, plane->id);
> >
> > new_master_plane_state =
> > intel_atomic_get_new_plane_state(state, master_plane);
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_ddi.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_ddi.c
> > index 3f0e1e127595..9dee12986991 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_ddi.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_ddi.c
> > @@ -2703,6 +2703,7 @@ static void intel_ddi_post_disable(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
> > struct intel_digital_port *dig_port = enc_to_dig_port(encoder);
> > enum phy phy = intel_port_to_phy(dev_priv, encoder->port);
> > bool is_tc_port = intel_phy_is_tc(dev_priv, phy);
> > + struct intel_crtc *slave_crtc;
> >
> > if (!intel_crtc_has_type(old_crtc_state, INTEL_OUTPUT_DP_MST)) {
> > intel_crtc_vblank_off(old_crtc_state);
> > @@ -2721,9 +2722,8 @@ static void intel_ddi_post_disable(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
> > ilk_pfit_disable(old_crtc_state);
> > }
> >
> > - if (old_crtc_state->bigjoiner_linked_crtc) {
> > - struct intel_crtc *slave_crtc =
> > - old_crtc_state->bigjoiner_linked_crtc;
> > + for_each_intel_crtc_in_pipe_mask(&dev_priv->drm, slave_crtc,
> > + intel_crtc_bigjoiner_slave_pipes(old_crtc_state)) {
> > const struct intel_crtc_state *old_slave_crtc_state =
> > intel_atomic_get_old_crtc_state(state, slave_crtc);
> >
> > @@ -3041,6 +3041,7 @@ intel_ddi_update_prepare(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
> > struct intel_encoder *encoder,
> > struct intel_crtc *crtc)
> > {
> > + struct drm_i915_private *i915 = to_i915(state->base.dev);
> > struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state =
> > crtc ? intel_atomic_get_new_crtc_state(state, crtc) : NULL;
> > int required_lanes = crtc_state ? crtc_state->lane_count : 1;
> > @@ -3050,11 +3051,12 @@ intel_ddi_update_prepare(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
> > intel_tc_port_get_link(enc_to_dig_port(encoder),
> > required_lanes);
> > if (crtc_state && crtc_state->hw.active) {
> > - struct intel_crtc *slave_crtc = crtc_state->bigjoiner_linked_crtc;
> > + struct intel_crtc *slave_crtc;
> >
> > intel_update_active_dpll(state, crtc, encoder);
> >
> > - if (slave_crtc)
> > + for_each_intel_crtc_in_pipe_mask(&i915->drm, slave_crtc,
> > + intel_crtc_bigjoiner_slave_pipes(crtc_state))
> > intel_update_active_dpll(state, slave_crtc, encoder);
> > }
> > }
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> > index 34b6b4ab3a1b..f5fc283f8f73 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> > @@ -337,20 +337,38 @@ is_trans_port_sync_mode(const struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state)
> > is_trans_port_sync_slave(crtc_state);
> > }
> >
> > +static enum pipe bigjoiner_master_pipe(const struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state)
> > +{
> > + return ffs(crtc_state->bigjoiner_pipes) - 1;
>
> Here we have both master and slave pipe bits set in a bitmask: This would result in ffs(0011) -1 = 2 which wouldnt be correct?
ffs(0b0011) == 1
<snip>
> > static int intel_atomic_check_bigjoiner(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
> > struct intel_crtc *master_crtc)
> > {
> > struct drm_i915_private *i915 = to_i915(state->base.dev);
> > struct intel_crtc_state *master_crtc_state =
> > intel_atomic_get_new_crtc_state(state, master_crtc);
> > - struct intel_crtc_state *slave_crtc_state;
> > struct intel_crtc *slave_crtc;
> > + u8 slave_pipes;
> >
> > - WARN_ON(master_crtc_state->bigjoiner_linked_crtc);
> > - WARN_ON(intel_crtc_is_bigjoiner_slave(master_crtc_state));
> > + /*
> > + * TODO: encoder.compute_config() may be the best
> > + * place to populate the bitmask for the master crtc.
> > + * For now encoder.compute_config() just flags things
> > + * as needing bigjoiner and we populate the bitmask
> > + * here.
> > + */
> > + WARN_ON(master_crtc_state->bigjoiner_pipes);
> >
> > if (!master_crtc_state->bigjoiner)
> > return 0;
> >
> > - slave_crtc = intel_dsc_get_bigjoiner_secondary(master_crtc);
> > - if (!slave_crtc) {
> > + slave_pipes = BIT(master_crtc->pipe + 1);
> > +
> > + if (slave_pipes & ~bigjoiner_pipes(i915)) {
> > drm_dbg_kms(&i915->drm,
> > - "[CRTC:%d:%s] Big joiner configuration requires "
> > - "CRTC + 1 to be used, doesn't exist\n",
> > + "[CRTC:%d:%s] Cannot act as big joiner master "
> > + "(need 0x%x as slave pipes, only 0x%x possible)\n",
> > + master_crtc->base.base.id, master_crtc->base.name,
> > + slave_pipes, bigjoiner_pipes(i915));
> > + return -EINVAL;
>
> I dont get how we are checking for the invalid slave pipe here?
> slave_pipes = BIT(1) = 0010
> bigjoiner_pipes = 0000 (since we havents et anything in compute config)
bigjoiner_pipes() is a bitmask of pipes that support bigjoiner.
It is constant for the platform.
> so slave_pipes & ~bigjoiner_pipes = 0010 & 1111 = 0010 so the condition will be true
> And then we are flagging it as error why?
If we come here with eg. master == pipe D on TGL then we'd
mark the non-existent pipe E as the slave. This check will
catch that.
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-02-07 7:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-02-03 18:38 [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 00/10] drm/i915: Use a bitmask for bigjoiner state tracking Ville Syrjala
2022-02-03 18:38 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 01/10] drm/i915: Flag crtc scaling_filter changes as modeset Ville Syrjala
2022-02-03 21:58 ` Navare, Manasi
2022-02-04 6:53 ` Ville Syrjälä
2022-02-03 18:38 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 02/10] drm/i915: Fix bigjoiner state copy fails Ville Syrjala
2022-02-03 22:13 ` Navare, Manasi
2022-02-04 7:05 ` Ville Syrjälä
2022-02-04 7:20 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 " Ville Syrjala
2022-02-04 20:58 ` Navare, Manasi
2022-02-03 18:38 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 03/10] drm/i915: Remove weird code from intel_atomic_check_bigjoiner() Ville Syrjala
2022-02-03 22:20 ` Navare, Manasi
2022-02-03 18:38 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 04/10] drm/i915: Clean up the bigjoiner state copy logic Ville Syrjala
2022-02-04 7:20 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 " Ville Syrjala
2022-02-04 20:52 ` Navare, Manasi
2022-02-07 7:32 ` Ville Syrjälä
2022-02-03 18:38 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 05/10] drm/i915: Nuke some dead code Ville Syrjala
2022-02-04 21:08 ` Navare, Manasi
2022-02-03 18:38 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 06/10] drm/i915: Introduce intel_crtc_is_bigjoiner_{slave, master}() Ville Syrjala
2022-02-04 21:27 ` Navare, Manasi
2022-02-07 7:31 ` Ville Syrjälä
2022-02-15 10:53 ` Nautiyal, Ankit K
2022-02-03 18:38 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 07/10] drm/i915: Convert for_each_intel_crtc_mask() to take a pipe mask instead Ville Syrjala
2022-02-09 19:57 ` Navare, Manasi
2022-02-03 18:38 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 08/10] drm/i915: Use for_each_intel_crtc_in_pipe_mask() more Ville Syrjala
2022-02-09 19:58 ` Navare, Manasi
2022-02-03 18:38 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 09/10] drm/i915: Return both master and slave pipes from enabled_bigjoiner_pipes() Ville Syrjala
2022-02-09 20:00 ` Navare, Manasi
2022-02-09 20:10 ` Ville Syrjälä
2022-02-03 18:38 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 10/10] drm/i915: Change bigjoiner state tracking to use the pipe bitmask Ville Syrjala
2022-02-04 23:58 ` Navare, Manasi
2022-02-07 7:31 ` Ville Syrjälä [this message]
2022-02-07 23:56 ` Navare, Manasi
2022-02-03 18:50 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for drm/i915: Use a bitmask for bigjoiner state tracking Patchwork
2022-02-03 18:51 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.SPARSE: " Patchwork
2022-02-03 19:19 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2022-02-03 21:18 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure " Patchwork
2022-02-04 7:33 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for drm/i915: Use a bitmask for bigjoiner state tracking (rev3) Patchwork
2022-02-04 7:34 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.SPARSE: " Patchwork
2022-02-04 8:03 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2022-02-04 9:22 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure " Patchwork
2022-02-15 22:34 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BUILD: failure for drm/i915: Use a bitmask for bigjoiner state tracking (rev4) 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=YgDKx8obYfeLKCAf@intel.com \
--to=ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=manasi.d.navare@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