Intel-GFX Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Lisovskiy, Stanislav" <stanislav.lisovskiy@intel.com>
To: "Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, jani.saarinen@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] drm/i915: Update mbus in intel_dbuf_mbus_update and do it properly
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:01:03 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZgGtz/jg1AK2Af6G@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZgGOHR8gOPUQNdMS@intel.com>

On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 04:45:49PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 01:23:26PM +0200, Stanislav Lisovskiy wrote:
> > According to BSpec we need to do correspondent MBUS updates before
> > or after DBUF reallocation, depending on whether we are enabling
> > or disabling mbus joining(typical scenario is swithing between
> > multiple and single displays).
> > 
> > Also we need to be able to update dbuf min tracker and mdclk ratio
> > separately if mbus_join state didn't change, so lets add one
> > degree of freedom and make it possible.
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Lisovskiy <stanislav.lisovskiy@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/skl_watermark.c | 54 +++++++++++++-------
> >  1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/skl_watermark.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/skl_watermark.c
> > index bc341abcab2fe..2b947870527fc 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/skl_watermark.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/skl_watermark.c
> > @@ -3570,16 +3570,38 @@ void intel_dbuf_mdclk_cdclk_ratio_update(struct drm_i915_private *i915, u8 ratio
> >  			     DBUF_MIN_TRACKER_STATE_SERVICE(ratio - 1));
> >  }
> >  
> > +static void intel_dbuf_mdclk_min_tracker_update(struct intel_atomic_state *state)
> > +{
> > +	struct drm_i915_private *i915 = to_i915(state->base.dev);
> > +	const struct intel_dbuf_state *old_dbuf_state =
> > +		intel_atomic_get_old_dbuf_state(state);
> > +	const struct intel_dbuf_state *new_dbuf_state =
> > +		intel_atomic_get_new_dbuf_state(state);
> > +
> > +	if (DISPLAY_VER(i915) >= 20 &&
> > +	    old_dbuf_state->mdclk_cdclk_ratio != new_dbuf_state->mdclk_cdclk_ratio) {
> > +		/*
> > +		 * For Xe2LPD and beyond, when there is a change in the ratio
> > +		 * between MDCLK and CDCLK, updates to related registers need to
> > +		 * happen at a specific point in the CDCLK change sequence. In
> > +		 * that case, we defer to the call to
> > +		 * intel_dbuf_mdclk_cdclk_ratio_update() to the CDCLK logic.
> > +		 */
> > +		return;
> > +	}
> 
> That still needs to be removed or else we'll not update the ratio at
> all during the mbus_join changes. I don't think I saw any removal
> in subsequent patches.
> 
> > +
> > +	intel_dbuf_mdclk_cdclk_ratio_update(i915, new_dbuf_state->mdclk_cdclk_ratio,

I don't get what is happening here.

"That whole condition I think needs to go. We want to update the ratio
also when changing mbus joining. But that behavioural change doesn't
really belong in this patch, so this is

Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>"

Now it again needs to be changed or changed in other patch(in this series or which one), 
I don't follow.
Should it be the patch changing MBUS join value?

Stan

> 
> And it just occurred to me that this thing will in fact be wrong
> during the pre/post ddb hooks *and* cdclk is getting decreased
> from the post plane update hook.
> 
> I can't immediately think of a super nice way to handle this.
> 
> Perhaps the most stragithforward idea is to just get the mdclk/cdclk
> ratio from i915->display.cdclk.hw during the pre/post ddb hooks.
> cdclk serialization should guard against parallel updates from
> two both places and thus isplay.cdclk.hw should be safe to use.
> 
> The other option would be to determine if a cdclk decrease
> is going to happen or not, and depending on that use the
> old vs. new dbuf_state when updating the ratio in the
> pre/post ddb hooks.
> 
> > +					    new_dbuf_state->joined_mbus);
> > +}
> > +
> >  /*
> >   * Configure MBUS_CTL and all DBUF_CTL_S of each slice to join_mbus state before
> >   * update the request state of all DBUS slices.
> >   */
> > -static void update_mbus_pre_enable(struct intel_atomic_state *state)
> > +static void intel_dbuf_mbus_join_update(struct intel_atomic_state *state)
> >  {
> >  	struct drm_i915_private *i915 = to_i915(state->base.dev);
> >  	u32 mbus_ctl;
> > -	const struct intel_dbuf_state *old_dbuf_state =
> > -		intel_atomic_get_old_dbuf_state(state);
> >  	const struct intel_dbuf_state *new_dbuf_state =
> >  		intel_atomic_get_new_dbuf_state(state);
> >  
> > @@ -3600,21 +3622,6 @@ static void update_mbus_pre_enable(struct intel_atomic_state *state)
> >  	intel_de_rmw(i915, MBUS_CTL,
> >  		     MBUS_HASHING_MODE_MASK | MBUS_JOIN |
> >  		     MBUS_JOIN_PIPE_SELECT_MASK, mbus_ctl);
> > -
> > -	if (DISPLAY_VER(i915) >= 20 &&
> > -	    old_dbuf_state->mdclk_cdclk_ratio != new_dbuf_state->mdclk_cdclk_ratio) {
> > -		/*
> > -		 * For Xe2LPD and beyond, when there is a change in the ratio
> > -		 * between MDCLK and CDCLK, updates to related registers need to
> > -		 * happen at a specific point in the CDCLK change sequence. In
> > -		 * that case, we defer to the call to
> > -		 * intel_dbuf_mdclk_cdclk_ratio_update() to the CDCLK logic.
> > -		 */
> > -		return;
> > -	}
> > -
> > -	intel_dbuf_mdclk_cdclk_ratio_update(i915, new_dbuf_state->mdclk_cdclk_ratio,
> > -					    new_dbuf_state->joined_mbus);
> >  }
> >  
> >  void intel_dbuf_pre_plane_update(struct intel_atomic_state *state)
> > @@ -3632,7 +3639,11 @@ void intel_dbuf_pre_plane_update(struct intel_atomic_state *state)
> >  
> >  	WARN_ON(!new_dbuf_state->base.changed);
> >  
> > -	update_mbus_pre_enable(state);
> > +	if (!old_dbuf_state->joined_mbus && new_dbuf_state->joined_mbus) {
> 
> I think you squashed that stuff into the wrong patch.
> This one should have a pure refactoring patch.
> 
> > +		intel_dbuf_mbus_join_update(state);
> > +		intel_dbuf_mdclk_min_tracker_update(state);
> > +	}
> > +
> >  	gen9_dbuf_slices_update(i915,
> >  				old_dbuf_state->enabled_slices |
> >  				new_dbuf_state->enabled_slices);
> > @@ -3653,6 +3664,11 @@ void intel_dbuf_post_plane_update(struct intel_atomic_state *state)
> >  
> >  	WARN_ON(!new_dbuf_state->base.changed);
> >  
> > +	if (old_dbuf_state->joined_mbus && !new_dbuf_state->joined_mbus) {
> > +		intel_dbuf_mbus_join_update(state);
> > +		intel_dbuf_mdclk_min_tracker_update(state);
> > +	}
> > +
> >  	gen9_dbuf_slices_update(i915,
> >  				new_dbuf_state->enabled_slices);
> >  }
> > -- 
> > 2.37.3
> 
> -- 
> Ville Syrjälä
> Intel

  reply	other threads:[~2024-03-25 17:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-03-25 11:23 [PATCH 0/4] Enable fastset for mbus_join state change Stanislav Lisovskiy
2024-03-25 11:23 ` [PATCH 1/4] drm/i915: Update mbus in intel_dbuf_mbus_update and do it properly Stanislav Lisovskiy
2024-03-25 14:45   ` Ville Syrjälä
2024-03-25 17:01     ` Lisovskiy, Stanislav [this message]
2024-03-25 17:11       ` Ville Syrjälä
2024-03-25 18:29         ` Lisovskiy, Stanislav
2024-03-25 18:43           ` Ville Syrjälä
2024-03-25 19:03             ` Lisovskiy, Stanislav
2024-03-26 12:12               ` Ville Syrjälä
2024-03-26 18:58                 ` Ville Syrjälä
2024-03-25 11:23 ` [PATCH 2/4] drm/i915: Use old mbus_join value when increasing CDCLK Stanislav Lisovskiy
2024-03-25 14:30   ` Ville Syrjälä
2024-03-25 16:55     ` Lisovskiy, Stanislav
2024-03-25 17:01       ` Ville Syrjälä
2024-03-25 18:16         ` Lisovskiy, Stanislav
2024-03-25 18:22           ` Ville Syrjälä
2024-03-25 18:49             ` Lisovskiy, Stanislav
2024-03-25 11:23 ` [PATCH 3/4] drm/i915: Loop over all active pipes in intel_mbus_dbox_update Stanislav Lisovskiy
2024-03-25 11:23 ` [PATCH 4/4] drm/i915: Implement vblank synchronized MBUS join changes Stanislav Lisovskiy
2024-03-25 15:06 ` ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for Enable fastset for mbus_join state change (rev4) Patchwork
2024-03-25 15:19 ` ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure " 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=ZgGtz/jg1AK2Af6G@intel.com \
    --to=stanislav.lisovskiy@intel.com \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=jani.saarinen@intel.com \
    --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