[Intel-gfx] [PATCH]DRM i915: IGD big FIFO support
shaohua.li at intel.com
Tue Jun 2 09:49:27 CEST 2009
On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 05:26:01PM +0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Mon, 25 May 2009 10:28:36 +0800
> Shaohua Li <shaohua.li at intel.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 03:39:51AM +0800, Eric Anholt wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2009-05-18 at 10:44 +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > > > + addr = ioremap(mch_bar, HOSTBAR_SIZE);
> > > > + if (!addr)
> > > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > > + tmp = *(u32 *)(addr + 0xc00);
> > > > + iounmap(addr);
> > >
> > > MCHBAR mapping is tricky. I think we'll need to use the same code
> > > here as i915_gem_tiling.c, and that's changing in 2.6.31 to
> > > successfully enable it (safely) more often.
> > Makes sense, I fixed the issues you pointed out.
> > Big FIFO is a feature to put memory into self-refresh mode when CPU
> > enters C3+ state. Gfx has a FIFO to buffer memory access, when the
> > watermark of the FIFO is under threshold, Gfx doesn't need access
> > memory, so at that time memory can be put into self-refresh mode.
> > The watermark calculation is based on CPU C3 state exit latency. If
> > watermark is wrong, when CPU enters C3+, display will be broken or
> > flicker.
> > I had a power measurement about the feature:
> > environment: 1920x1400 display, Atom CPU with C4 enabled, system FSB
> > is 667 and memory is DDR2 667. Launch X, and gives system several
> > minutes to settle down, then test the power of the whole system in
> > idle time: without big fifo, idle power is 19.8w
> > with it, idle power is 18.6w
> > The patch doesn't enable HPLL off for CxSR. Last time I heard it's
> > broken in current IGD chip, if it works, then I'll add it later.
> Shaohua, can you take a look at this patch and see if it makes sense to
> include in yours? I think we could probably share the latency tables &
> math (haven't checked mine in this patch yet, it's untested on
> platforms needing FIFO adjustment) at the very least...
the latency talbe might be ok. the math looks different. My patch is using
clock*pixel_size*latency/cachline_size for SR WM, but looks yours takes a
different approach for SR WM. does the math depends on chipset?
The register write is different. Most fields of FW_BLC and FW_BLC_SELF is
reserved in IGD and my patch is using FW1-FW3.
More information about the Intel-gfx