From: "Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
To: "Borah, Chaitanya Kumar" <chaitanya.kumar.borah@intel.com>
Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
"intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org" <intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org"
<intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"Deak, Imre" <imre.deak@intel.com>,
"Shankar, Uma" <uma.shankar@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/display: Add upper limit check for pixel clock
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2025 22:24:26 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aGWHanRhse9y2MjV@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <SJ1PR11MB61290B4DE08CCB4DC32F71F1B940A@SJ1PR11MB6129.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
On Wed, Jul 02, 2025 at 09:42:04AM +0000, Borah, Chaitanya Kumar wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2025 2:01 PM
> > To: Borah, Chaitanya Kumar <chaitanya.kumar.borah@intel.com>; intel-
> > xe@lists.freedesktop.org; intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> > Cc: Deak, Imre <imre.deak@intel.com>; ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com; Shankar,
> > Uma <uma.shankar@intel.com>; Borah, Chaitanya Kumar
> > <chaitanya.kumar.borah@intel.com>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/display: Add upper limit check for pixel clock
> >
> > On Wed, 02 Jul 2025, Chaitanya Kumar Borah
> > <chaitanya.kumar.borah@intel.com> wrote:
> > > Add upper limit check for pixel clock by platform. Limits don't apply
> > > when DSC is enabled.
> > >
> > > For the currently supported versions of HDMI, pixel clock is already
> > > limited to 600Mhz so nothing needs to be done there as of now.
> > >
> > > BSpec: 49199, 68912
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Chaitanya Kumar Borah <chaitanya.kumar.borah@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c | 12 ++++++++++++
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.h | 1 +
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c | 3 +++
> > > 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> > > index 456fc4b04cda..bf0faff50c2e 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> > > @@ -7902,6 +7902,18 @@ void intel_setup_outputs(struct intel_display
> > *display)
> > > drm_helper_move_panel_connectors_to_head(display->drm);
> > > }
> > >
> > > +int intel_dotclock_limit(struct intel_display *display) {
> > > + if (DISPLAY_VERx100(display) == 3002)
> > > + return 937500;
> > > + else if (DISPLAY_VER(display) >= 30)
> > > + return 1350000;
> > > + else if (DISPLAY_VER(display) >= 13)
> > > + return 1200000;
> > > + else
> > > + return 1100000;
> > > +}
> >
> > How does this relate to display->cdclk.max_dotclk_freq that's computed in
> > intel_compute_max_dotclk(display)?
> >
>
> The Bspec defines this limit as "maximum validated frequency" and asks to limit the pixel clock accordingly when DSC is not enabled.
> At least for PTL it is 97.65 % of the mathematically calculated maximum pixel clock (pixel per clock * max cdclk).
>
> I am not sure if intel_cdclk_guardband() used in intel_compute_max_dotclk() was intended for something similar. However, since the limit only applies
> when dsc is not enabled it made sense to me that we apply this limit during intel_dp_mode_valid () instead of doing it in intel_compute_max_dotclk().
I think what we need is something like:
- implement the DSC bubble stuff and account for it in both
cdclk calculations and mode validation
- implement this non-dsc cdclk limit checks also in a way that
covers both (also needs to cover all output types, not just DP).
I suspect the DSC bubble stuff might always end up more restrictive
than this, so perhaps this could just be covered by adjusting the
cdclk guardband
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-07-02 19:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-07-02 4:27 [PATCH] drm/i915/display: Add upper limit check for pixel clock Chaitanya Kumar Borah
2025-07-02 7:36 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success for " Patchwork
2025-07-02 8:14 ` ✓ Xe.CI.BAT: " Patchwork
2025-07-02 8:31 ` [PATCH] " Jani Nikula
2025-07-02 9:42 ` Borah, Chaitanya Kumar
2025-07-02 19:24 ` Ville Syrjälä [this message]
2025-07-03 6:33 ` Nautiyal, Ankit K
2025-07-03 21:58 ` ✓ Xe.CI.Full: success for " 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=aGWHanRhse9y2MjV@intel.com \
--to=ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com \
--cc=chaitanya.kumar.borah@intel.com \
--cc=imre.deak@intel.com \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=jani.nikula@linux.intel.com \
--cc=uma.shankar@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