From: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
To: Ankit Nautiyal <ankit.k.nautiyal@intel.com>
Cc: <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>, <intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/vdsc: Account for DSC slice overhead in intel_vdsc_min_cdclk()
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2025 14:56:04 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aUk_5GZQrDIDN8fK@ideak-desk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251222044443.2443411-1-ankit.k.nautiyal@intel.com>
On Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 10:14:43AM +0530, Ankit Nautiyal wrote:
> When DSC is enabled on a pipe, the pipe pixel rate input to the
> CDCLK frequency and pipe joining calculation needs an adjustment to
> account for compression overhead "bubbles" added at each horizontal
> slice boundary.
>
> Account for this overhead while computing min cdclk required for DSC.
>
> v2: Get rid of the scaling factor and return unchanged pixel-rate
> instead of 0.
>
> Bspec:68912
> Signed-off-by: Ankit Nautiyal <ankit.k.nautiyal@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vdsc.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vdsc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vdsc.c
> index ad5fe841e4b3..b91cd009be9d 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vdsc.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vdsc.c
> @@ -1050,15 +1050,52 @@ void intel_vdsc_state_dump(struct drm_printer *p, int indent,
> drm_dsc_dump_config(p, indent, &crtc_state->dsc.config);
> }
>
> +static
> +int intel_dsc_get_pixel_rate_with_dsc_bubbles(int pixel_rate, int htotal,
> + int dsc_horizontal_slices)
> +{
> + int dsc_slice_bubbles;
> + u64 num;
> +
> + if (!htotal)
Should this also warn as !slice_width below?
> + return pixel_rate;
> +
> + dsc_slice_bubbles = 14 * dsc_horizontal_slices;
> + num = (u64)pixel_rate * (u64)(htotal + dsc_slice_bubbles);
Better to use mul_u32_u32() to avoid the casts and 64-bit x 64-bit
multiplication.
> +
> + return (int)DIV_ROUND_UP_ULL(num, (u64)htotal);
Both casts are ensured by the compiler already, so no need for doing
them explicitly.
> +}
> +
> +static
> +int pixel_rate_with_dsc_bubbles(const struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state, int pixel_rate)
> +{
> + struct intel_display *display = to_intel_display(crtc_state);
> + const struct drm_display_mode *adjusted_mode = &crtc_state->hw.adjusted_mode;
> + const struct drm_dsc_config *vdsc_cfg = &crtc_state->dsc.config;
> + int dsc_horizontal_slices;
> +
> + if (drm_WARN_ON(display->drm, !vdsc_cfg->slice_width))
> + return pixel_rate;
> +
> + dsc_horizontal_slices = vdsc_cfg->pic_width / vdsc_cfg->slice_width;
The above looks to be the same as crtc_state->dsc.slice_count, aka the
slices per scanline, could you use that instead?
> +
> + return intel_dsc_get_pixel_rate_with_dsc_bubbles(pixel_rate,
> + adjusted_mode->crtc_htotal,
> + dsc_horizontal_slices);
> +}
> +
> int intel_vdsc_min_cdclk(const struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state)
> {
> struct intel_display *display = to_intel_display(crtc_state);
> int num_vdsc_instances = intel_dsc_get_num_vdsc_instances(crtc_state);
> + int pixel_rate;
> int min_cdclk;
>
> if (!crtc_state->dsc.compression_enable)
> return 0;
>
> + pixel_rate = pixel_rate_with_dsc_bubbles(crtc_state, crtc_state->pixel_rate);
> +
> /*
> * When we decide to use only one VDSC engine, since
> * each VDSC operates with 1 ppc throughput, pixel clock
> @@ -1066,7 +1103,7 @@ int intel_vdsc_min_cdclk(const struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state)
> * If there 2 VDSC engines, then pixel clock can't be higher than
> * VDSC clock(cdclk) * 2 and so on.
> */
> - min_cdclk = DIV_ROUND_UP(crtc_state->pixel_rate, num_vdsc_instances);
> + min_cdclk = DIV_ROUND_UP(pixel_rate, num_vdsc_instances);
>
> if (crtc_state->joiner_pipes) {
> int pixel_clock = intel_dp_mode_to_fec_clock(crtc_state->hw.adjusted_mode.clock);
> @@ -1084,9 +1121,9 @@ int intel_vdsc_min_cdclk(const struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state)
> * => CDCLK >= compressed_bpp * Pixel clock / 2 * Bigjoiner Interface bits
> */
> int bigjoiner_interface_bits = DISPLAY_VER(display) >= 14 ? 36 : 24;
> - int min_cdclk_bj =
> - (fxp_q4_to_int_roundup(crtc_state->dsc.compressed_bpp_x16) *
> - pixel_clock) / (2 * bigjoiner_interface_bits);
> + int adjusted_pixel_rate = pixel_rate_with_dsc_bubbles(crtc_state, pixel_clock);
> + int min_cdclk_bj = (fxp_q4_to_int_roundup(crtc_state->dsc.compressed_bpp_x16) *
> + adjusted_pixel_rate) / (2 * bigjoiner_interface_bits);
>
> min_cdclk = max(min_cdclk, min_cdclk_bj);
> }
> --
> 2.45.2
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-12-22 12:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-12-22 4:44 [PATCH] drm/i915/vdsc: Account for DSC slice overhead in intel_vdsc_min_cdclk() Ankit Nautiyal
2025-12-22 12:56 ` Imre Deak [this message]
2025-12-23 5:35 ` Nautiyal, Ankit K
2025-12-23 9:46 ` Imre Deak
2025-12-23 12:38 ` Nautiyal, Ankit K
2025-12-23 18:22 ` Imre Deak
2025-12-23 6:17 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success for " Patchwork
2025-12-23 7:22 ` ✓ Xe.CI.BAT: " Patchwork
2025-12-23 16:58 ` ✓ Xe.CI.Full: " 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=aUk_5GZQrDIDN8fK@ideak-desk \
--to=imre.deak@intel.com \
--cc=ankit.k.nautiyal@intel.com \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
/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