[PATCH v5 2/5] drm/msm/dsi: Adjust pclk rate for compression

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On 08/06/2023 23:36, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> Same title suggestion as earlier: s/adjust/reduce
> 
> On 2023-05-22 18:08:56, Jessica Zhang wrote:
>> Adjust the pclk rate to divide hdisplay by the compression ratio when DSC
>> is enabled.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jessica Zhang <quic_jesszhan at quicinc.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++++---
>>   1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c
>> index a448931af804..88f370dd2ea1 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c
>> @@ -561,7 +561,18 @@ void dsi_link_clk_disable_v2(struct msm_dsi_host *msm_host)
>>   	clk_disable_unprepare(msm_host->byte_clk);
>>   }
>>   
>> -static unsigned long dsi_get_pclk_rate(const struct drm_display_mode *mode, bool is_bonded_dsi)
>> +static unsigned long dsi_adjust_compressed_pclk(const struct drm_display_mode *mode,
> 
> Nit: adjust_pclk_for_compression
> 
> As discussed before we realized that this change is more-or-less a hack,
> since downstream calculates pclk quite differently - at least for
> command-mode panels.  Do you still intend to land this patch this way,
> or go the proper route by introducing the right math from the get-go?
> Or is the math at least correct for video-mode panels?

Can we please postpone the cmd-vs-video discussion? Otherwise I will 
reserve myself a right to push a patch dropping CMD mode support until 
somebody comes with a proper way to handle CMD clock calculation.


It is off-topic for the sake of DSC 1.2 support. Yes, all CMD panel 
timings are a kind of a hack and should be improved. No, we can not do 
this as a part of this series. I think everybody agrees that with the 
current way of calculating CMD panel timings, this function does some 
kind of a trick.

> 
> This function requires a documentation comment to explain that all.
> 
>> +		const struct drm_dsc_config *dsc)
>> +{
>> +	int new_hdisplay = DIV_ROUND_UP(mode->hdisplay * drm_dsc_get_bpp_int(dsc),
> 
> This sounds like a prime candidate for msm_dsc_get_bytes_per_line(), if
> bits_per_component==8 is assumed.  In fact, it then becomes identical
> to the following line in dsi_host.c which you added previously:
> 
> 	hdisplay = DIV_ROUND_UP(msm_dsc_get_bytes_per_line(msm_host->dsc), 3);

This would imply a simple /3, but as far as I understand it is not 
correct here.

> 
> If not, what is the difference between these two calculations?  Maybe
> they both need to be in a properly-named helper.
> 
>> +			dsc->bits_per_component * 3);

I hope to see a documentation patch to be posted, telling that this 
scales hdisplay and thus pclk by the factor of compressed_bpp / 
uncompressed_bpp.

This is not how it is usually done, but I would accept a separate 
documentation patch going over the calculation here and in 
dsi_timing_setup (and maybe other unobvious cases, if there is anything 
left).

> 
> As we established in the drm/msm issue [2] there is currently a
> confusion whether this /3 (and the /3 in dsi_timing_setup) come from the
> ratio between dsi_get_bpp() and dsc->bpp or something else.  Can you
> clarify that with constants and comments?
> 
> [2]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/issues/24
> 
>> +
>> +	return (new_hdisplay + (mode->htotal - mode->hdisplay))
>> +			* mode->vtotal * drm_mode_vrefresh(mode);
> 
> As clarified in [1] I was not necessarily suggesting to move this math
> to a separate helper, but to also use a few more properly-named
> intermediate variables to not have multi-line math and self-documenting
> code.  These lines could be split to be much more clear.

I think it's fine more or less. One pair of parenthesis is unnecessary, 
but that's mostly it. Maybe `new_htotal' variable would make some sense.

Also, please excuse me if this was discussed somewhere. This calculation 
means that only the displayed data is compressed, but porches are not 
touched. Correct?

> 
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/u4x2vldkzsokfcpbkz3dtwcllbdk4ljcz6kzuaxt5frx6g76o5@uku6abewvye7/
> 
>> +}
>> +
>> +static unsigned long dsi_get_pclk_rate(const struct drm_display_mode *mode,
>> +		const struct drm_dsc_config *dsc, bool is_bonded_dsi)
>>   {
>>   	unsigned long pclk_rate;
>>   
>> @@ -576,6 +587,10 @@ static unsigned long dsi_get_pclk_rate(const struct drm_display_mode *mode, bool
>>   	if (is_bonded_dsi)
>>   		pclk_rate /= 2;
>>   
>> +	/* If DSC is enabled, divide hdisplay by compression ratio */
>> +	if (dsc)
>> +		pclk_rate = dsi_adjust_compressed_pclk(mode, dsc);

Looking for the perfection, I'd also move the pclk adjustment to come 
before the is_bonded_dsi check.

> 
> The confusion with this comment (and the reason the aforementioned
> discussion [2] carried on so long) stems from the fact a division makes
> sense for a bit/byte clock, but not for a pixel clock: we still intend
> to send the same number of pixels, just spending less bytes on them.  So
> as you clarify the /3 above, can you also clarify that here or drop this
> comment completely when the function is correctly documented instead?
> 
> - Marijn
> 
>> +
>>   	return pclk_rate;
>>   }
>>   
>> @@ -585,7 +600,7 @@ unsigned long dsi_byte_clk_get_rate(struct mipi_dsi_host *host, bool is_bonded_d
>>   	struct msm_dsi_host *msm_host = to_msm_dsi_host(host);
>>   	u8 lanes = msm_host->lanes;
>>   	u32 bpp = dsi_get_bpp(msm_host->format);
>> -	unsigned long pclk_rate = dsi_get_pclk_rate(mode, is_bonded_dsi);
>> +	unsigned long pclk_rate = dsi_get_pclk_rate(mode, msm_host->dsc, is_bonded_dsi);
>>   	unsigned long pclk_bpp;
>>   
>>   	if (lanes == 0) {
>> @@ -604,7 +619,7 @@ unsigned long dsi_byte_clk_get_rate(struct mipi_dsi_host *host, bool is_bonded_d
>>   
>>   static void dsi_calc_pclk(struct msm_dsi_host *msm_host, bool is_bonded_dsi)
>>   {
>> -	msm_host->pixel_clk_rate = dsi_get_pclk_rate(msm_host->mode, is_bonded_dsi);
>> +	msm_host->pixel_clk_rate = dsi_get_pclk_rate(msm_host->mode, msm_host->dsc, is_bonded_dsi);
>>   	msm_host->byte_clk_rate = dsi_byte_clk_get_rate(&msm_host->base, is_bonded_dsi,
>>   							msm_host->mode);
>>   
>>
>> -- 
>> 2.40.1
>>

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry