[Intel-gfx] [RFC PATCH] drm/i915/skl: Add DC6 disabling as a power well
Patrik Jakobsson
patrik.jakobsson at linux.intel.com
Mon Sep 21 01:45:53 PDT 2015
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:26:06AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015, Patrik Jakobsson <patrik.jakobsson at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:10:07PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 01:55:22PM +0200, Patrik Jakobsson wrote:
> >> > We need to be able to control if DC6 is allowed or not. Much like
> >> > requesting power to a specific piece of the hardware we need to be able
> >> > to request that we don't enter DC6 during certain hw access.
> >> >
> >> > To solve this without introducing too much infrastructure I'm hooking
> >> > into the power well / power domain framework. DC6 prevention is modeled
> >> > much like an enabled power well. Thus I'm using the terminology on/off
> >> > for DC states instead of enable/disable.
> >> >
> >> > The problem that started this work is the need for DC6 to be disabled
> >> > when accessing DP_AUX_A during CRTC on/off. That is also fixed in this
> >> > patch.
> >> >
> >> > This is posted as an RFC since DMC and DC state handling is being
> >> > reworked and will possibly affect the outcome of this patch. The patch
> >> > has known warnings.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Patrik Jakobsson <patrik.jakobsson at linux.intel.com>
> >> > ---
> >> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c | 9 +++++
> >> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h | 2 +
> >> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> >> > 3 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c
> >> > index 4823184..c2c1ad2 100644
> >> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c
> >> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c
> >> > @@ -2288,6 +2288,8 @@ static void intel_ddi_pre_enable(struct intel_encoder *intel_encoder)
> >> > if (type == INTEL_OUTPUT_DISPLAYPORT || type == INTEL_OUTPUT_EDP) {
> >> > struct intel_dp *intel_dp = enc_to_intel_dp(encoder);
> >> >
> >> > + intel_display_power_get(dev_priv, POWER_DOMAIN_AUX_A);
> >> > +
> >>
> >> These I think shouldn't be necessary with my
> >> intel_display_port_aux_power_domain() stuff since intel_dp_aux_ch() will
> >> itself grab the appropriate power domain.
>
> Are you referring to stuff that is merged? Am I missing something?
It's not merged afaik. Ville's patches are at:
https://github.com/vsyrjala/linux/commits/aux_gmbus_power_domains
> >>
> >> That's of course assuming that AUX is the only reason why we need to
> >> keep DC6 disabled here.
> >>
> >
> > The upside with having get/put around bigger aux transfers is that we
> > don't get tons of enable/disable lines in the log. My vote is that we
> > keep this but also have your fine-grained get/puts.
>
> If it works without (and everything Ville is referring to above is
> merged), I'd split these to a separate patch, and we can judge the
> improvement on its own.
Yes, and there are a few other places that I'd like to group so I'll split that
out.
> BR,
> Jani.
>
>
> >
> > We also have an extra enable disable print in skl_disable_dc6() /
> > skl_enable_dc6() which I think should be removed unless various DC on/off hacks
> > are required outside of the power wells framework.
> >
> >> > intel_dp_set_link_params(intel_dp, crtc->config);
> >> >
> >> > intel_ddi_init_dp_buf_reg(intel_encoder);
> >> > @@ -2297,6 +2299,8 @@ static void intel_ddi_pre_enable(struct intel_encoder *intel_encoder)
> >> > intel_dp_complete_link_train(intel_dp);
> >> > if (port != PORT_A || INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen >= 9)
> >> > intel_dp_stop_link_train(intel_dp);
> >> > +
> >> > + intel_display_power_put(dev_priv, POWER_DOMAIN_AUX_A);
> >> > } else if (type == INTEL_OUTPUT_HDMI) {
> >> > struct intel_hdmi *intel_hdmi = enc_to_intel_hdmi(encoder);
> >> >
> >> > @@ -2339,9 +2343,14 @@ static void intel_ddi_post_disable(struct intel_encoder *intel_encoder)
> >> >
> >> > if (type == INTEL_OUTPUT_DISPLAYPORT || type == INTEL_OUTPUT_EDP) {
> >> > struct intel_dp *intel_dp = enc_to_intel_dp(encoder);
> >> > +
> >> > + intel_display_power_get(dev_priv, POWER_DOMAIN_AUX_A);
> >> > +
> >> > intel_dp_sink_dpms(intel_dp, DRM_MODE_DPMS_OFF);
> >> > intel_edp_panel_vdd_on(intel_dp);
> >> > intel_edp_panel_off(intel_dp);
> >> > +
> >> > + intel_display_power_put(dev_priv, POWER_DOMAIN_AUX_A);
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > if (IS_SKYLAKE(dev))
> >> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> >> > index 46484e4..82489ad 100644
> >> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> >> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> >> > @@ -1367,6 +1367,8 @@ void chv_phy_powergate_lanes(struct intel_encoder *encoder,
> >> > bool override, unsigned int mask);
> >> > bool chv_phy_powergate_ch(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, enum dpio_phy phy,
> >> > enum dpio_channel ch, bool override);
> >> > +void skl_enable_dc6(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
> >> > +void skl_disable_dc6(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > /* intel_pm.c */
> >> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.c
> >> > index 3f682a1..e30c9a6 100644
> >> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.c
> >> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.c
> >> > @@ -335,6 +335,10 @@ static void hsw_set_power_well(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> >> > SKL_DISPLAY_POWERWELL_1_POWER_DOMAINS | \
> >> > BIT(POWER_DOMAIN_PLLS) | \
> >> > BIT(POWER_DOMAIN_INIT))
> >> > +#define SKL_DISPLAY_DC6_OFF_POWER_DOMAINS ( \
> >> > + SKL_DISPLAY_POWERWELL_2_POWER_DOMAINS | \
> >> > + BIT(POWER_DOMAIN_AUX_A))
> >> > +
> >> > #define SKL_DISPLAY_ALWAYS_ON_POWER_DOMAINS ( \
> >> > (POWER_DOMAIN_MASK & ~(SKL_DISPLAY_POWERWELL_1_POWER_DOMAINS | \
> >> > SKL_DISPLAY_POWERWELL_2_POWER_DOMAINS | \
> >> > @@ -550,7 +554,7 @@ static void assert_can_disable_dc6(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> >> > "DC6 already programmed to be disabled.\n");
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > -static void skl_enable_dc6(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> >> > +void skl_enable_dc6(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> >> > {
> >> > uint32_t val;
> >> >
> >> > @@ -567,7 +571,7 @@ static void skl_enable_dc6(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> >> > POSTING_READ(DC_STATE_EN);
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > -static void skl_disable_dc6(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> >> > +void skl_disable_dc6(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> >> > {
> >> > uint32_t val;
> >> >
> >> > @@ -628,10 +632,8 @@ static void skl_set_power_well(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> >> > !I915_READ(HSW_PWR_WELL_BIOS),
> >> > "Invalid for power well status to be enabled, unless done by the BIOS, \
> >> > when request is to disable!\n");
> >> > - if ((GEN9_ENABLE_DC5(dev) || SKL_ENABLE_DC6(dev)) &&
> >> > - power_well->data == SKL_DISP_PW_2) {
> >> > + if (power_well->data == SKL_DISP_PW_2) {
> >> > if (SKL_ENABLE_DC6(dev)) {
> >> > - skl_disable_dc6(dev_priv);
> >>
> >> Hmm. So the ordering needs to be
> >> disable dc6 -> enable pw2
> >
> > I don't know why DC6 is required for PW2 and at this point I don't see why the
> > ordering should matter. Could you please explain?
> >
> >> > /*
> >> > * DDI buffer programming unnecessary during driver-load/resume
> >> > * as it's already done during modeset initialization then.
> >> > @@ -639,10 +641,9 @@ static void skl_set_power_well(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> >> > */
> >> > if (!dev_priv->power_domains.initializing)
> >> > intel_prepare_ddi(dev);
> >> > - } else {
> >> > - gen9_disable_dc5(dev_priv);
> >> > }
> >> > }
> >> > +
> >> > I915_WRITE(HSW_PWR_WELL_DRIVER, tmp | req_mask);
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > @@ -660,8 +661,7 @@ static void skl_set_power_well(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> >> > POSTING_READ(HSW_PWR_WELL_DRIVER);
> >> > DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Disabling %s\n", power_well->name);
> >> >
> >> > - if ((GEN9_ENABLE_DC5(dev) || SKL_ENABLE_DC6(dev)) &&
> >> > - power_well->data == SKL_DISP_PW_2) {
> >> > + if (power_well->data == SKL_DISP_PW_2) {
> >> > enum csr_state state;
> >> > /* TODO: wait for a completion event or
> >> > * similar here instead of busy
> >> > @@ -669,14 +669,10 @@ static void skl_set_power_well(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> >> > */
> >> > wait_for((state = intel_csr_load_status_get(dev_priv)) !=
> >> > FW_UNINITIALIZED, 1000);
> >> > - if (state != FW_LOADED)
> >> > + if (state != FW_LOADED) {
> >> > DRM_ERROR("CSR firmware not ready (%d)\n",
> >> > - state);
> >> > - else
> >> > - if (SKL_ENABLE_DC6(dev))
> >> > - skl_enable_dc6(dev_priv);
> >> > - else
> >> > - gen9_enable_dc5(dev_priv);
> >> > + state);
> >> > + }
> >>
> >> and here we need
> >> disable pw2 -> enable dc6
> >>
> >> That's symmetric which is great for using power wells here since we walk
> >> the power wells array forward when enabling, and backwards when
> >> disabling.
> >>
> >> I'm thinking that we could also move the dc5 stuff into a power well.
> >> Would reduce the clutter in skl_set_power_well() at least. I'm not sure
> >> what the requirements wrt. dc5 are. If they are the same as for dc6,
> >> then a single dc power well would do, otherwise we would need two, each
> >> with its own domains.
> >
> > From what I've heard we don't need to care about DC5 atm. But I also think that
> > a power well for DC5 is the way to go. Need to check with Damien what the
> > requirements for DC5 are.
> >
> >> > }
> >> > }
> >> > }
> >> > @@ -752,6 +748,34 @@ static void skl_power_well_disable(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> >> > skl_set_power_well(dev_priv, power_well, false);
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > +static bool skl_dc6_state_enabled(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> >> > + struct i915_power_well *power_well)
> >> > +{
> >> > + /* Return true if disabling of DC6 is enabled */
> >> > + return !(I915_READ(DC_STATE_EN) & DC_STATE_EN_UPTO_DC6);
> >> > +}
> >> > +
> >> > +static void skl_dc6_state_on(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> >> > + struct i915_power_well *power_well)
> >> > +{
> >> > + skl_enable_dc6(dev_priv);
> >> > +}
> >> > +
> >> > +static void skl_dc6_state_off(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> >> > + struct i915_power_well *power_well)
> >> > +{
> >> > + skl_disable_dc6(dev_priv);
> >> > +}
> >> > +
> >> > +static void skl_dc6_sync_hw(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> >> > + struct i915_power_well *power_well)
> >> > +{
> >> > + if (power_well->count > 0)
> >> > + skl_disable_dc6(dev_priv);
> >> > + else
> >> > + skl_enable_dc6(dev_priv);
> >> > +}
> >>
> >> Nit: Looks like we usuall have these in the following order
> >> sync_hw
> >> enable
> >> disable
> >>
> >> 'enabled' is a bit all over the place usually. I guess before or after the
> >> rest is fine.
> >
> > Yes, better keep the current order.
> >
> >> I'm not really sure how I would name these. The current naming doesn't
> >> really tell me they're power well ops. Maybe
> >> skl_dc6_off_power_well_{enable,disable,sync_hw,enabled}() ?
> >
> > I agree, better make it clear that they are pw ops.
> >
> >> > +
> >> > static void i9xx_always_on_power_well_noop(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> >> > struct i915_power_well *power_well)
> >> > {
> >> > @@ -1546,6 +1570,14 @@ static const struct i915_power_well_ops skl_power_well_ops = {
> >> > .is_enabled = skl_power_well_enabled,
> >> > };
> >> >
> >> > +static const struct i915_power_well_ops skl_dc_state_ops = {
> >>
> >> _dc6_, and naming to match how the function are finally named of
> >> course.
> >>
> >> > + .sync_hw = skl_dc6_sync_hw,
> >> > + /* To enable power we turn the DC state off */
> >> > + .enable = skl_dc6_state_off,
> >> > + .disable = skl_dc6_state_on,
> >> > + .is_enabled = skl_dc6_state_enabled,
> >> > +};
> >> > +
> >> > static struct i915_power_well hsw_power_wells[] = {
> >> > {
> >> > .name = "always-on",
> >> > @@ -1745,6 +1777,11 @@ static struct i915_power_well skl_power_wells[] = {
> >> > .ops = &skl_power_well_ops,
> >> > .data = SKL_DISP_PW_DDI_D,
> >> > },
> >> > + {
> >> > + .name = "DC6 state off",
> >>
> >> Just "DC6 off" perhaps?
> >>
> >> I wasn't able to think of a nice way to name this so that it would make
> >> more sense in the logs. With this we would get
> >> 'enabling DC6 off' and 'disabling DC6 off' which is a bit confusing.
> >> Maybe we should at least put quotes around the power well name in the
> >> debug message to make it a bit less funky? Probably not worth it to
> >> add support for sully customized enable/disable log message.
> >
> > Agreed
> >
> >> > + .domains = SKL_DISPLAY_DC6_OFF_POWER_DOMAINS,
> >> > + .ops = &skl_power_well_ops,
> >>
> >> Surely you want to use the new ops you created? :)
> >
> > Oops :)
> >
> >> And here we need to be careful where in the list we insert the power
> >> well. Based on what we saw earlier, the right place should be just
> >> before PW2. That way DC6 gets disabled before PW2 is enabled, and
> >> PW2 gets disabled before DC6 gets enabled.
> >
> > Yes, regardless of the ordering requirements it makes sense to move it up.
> >
> > Thanks for having a look
> > -Patrik
> >
> >> > + },
> >> > };
> >> >
> >> > static struct i915_power_well bxt_power_wells[] = {
> >> > --
> >> > 2.1.4
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Intel-gfx mailing list
> >> > Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> >> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ville Syrjälä
> >> Intel OTC
> > _______________________________________________
> > Intel-gfx mailing list
> > Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
>
> --
> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list