[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Use SWF06 to figure out max cdclk for BDW

[Thulasimani, Sivakumar]

On 2/12/2016 8:36 PM, ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com wrote:
> From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
>
> Bspec tells us that we can allow cdclk up to 540Mhz on BDW ULX, or
> up to 675 MHz on ULT, bu only if extra cooling is provided. There
> don't seem to be any strap or VBT bits to tells us this however.
>
> But I did spot something potentially relevant in
> VBIOS_GOP_Driver_SWF_Registers.pdf. Apparently VBIOS/GOP can pass
> the max cdclk frequeny in SWF06 to the driver. Let's assume the firmware
> knows what its doing and trust the max cdclk in SWF06 if it's higher
> than the basic limit specified in Bspec. To avoid regressing anything
> let's ignore SWF06 if it indicates a lower limit than Bspec.
>
> Cc: Clint Taylor <clinton.a.taylor at intel.com>
> Cc: "Thulasimani, Sivakumar" <sivakumar.thulasimani at intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> ---
>
> I'm not at all sure if this is the right way to go about it. Sivakumar,
> since you seem to have some ideas on this maybe you can have a look.
> I'm not aware of any complaints so far that people can't get the cdclk
> as high is they should on specific machines, so not sure if this is really
> even needed.
>
> The other open question is what we should do if the VBIOS limit is
> lower than what we'd expect based on BSpec. Should we still trust it?
> Sadly we can't verify the SWF06 cdclk value in any way since it
> only has two bits and we have four possible cdclk values.
The value stored in SWF06 is the CD Clock VBIOS/GOP sees during boot. so
it just backs up the CD Clock before it optimizes for the available LFP. 
if we
are trusting for higher value we should trust it for lower value too.
The OEM might have did this to either reduce max resolution for cheaper
products or might have removed some cooling mechanisms for thinner
designs since we cannot say which of the reasons we should trust the
lower value too.

now comes to tough part :(, this SWF06 is saved by VBIOS/GOP driver
from intel alone(it is not programmed from VBT),
since GOP driver can be implemented by anyone and
if anyone implements their own GOP driver we cannot be sure if the
value is valid or not. please check if we can check for "Intel GOP driver".
And if "Intel GOP driver" was used during boot, we can trust the value
100%.  i am not sure how this can be done, so i would recommend
trusting the values with clear debug messages as done below already.

As mentioned in another thread, this needs to be done for SKL too.
i dont have a SKL system so if no one else can make a patch for it
i will have to share an untested patch for it :).
>
>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 60 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>   1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> index 836bbdc239b6..1d70f6bf2934 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> @@ -5407,21 +5407,55 @@ static void intel_update_max_cdclk(struct drm_device *dev)
>   			dev_priv->max_cdclk_freq = 450000;
>   		else
>   			dev_priv->max_cdclk_freq = 337500;
> -	} else if (IS_BROADWELL(dev))  {
> +	} else if (IS_BROADWELL(dev)) {
> +		int bios_max_cdclk_freq, max_cdclk_freq;
> +
>   		/*
> -		 * FIXME with extra cooling we can allow
> -		 * 540 MHz for ULX and 675 Mhz for ULT.
> -		 * How can we know if extra cooling is
> -		 * available? PCI ID, VTB, something else?
> +		 * With extra cooling we can allow 540 MHz for
> +		 * ULX and 675 Mhz for ULT. Assume VBIOS/GOP
> +		 * passes that information in SWF06.
>   		 */
> -		if (I915_READ(FUSE_STRAP) & HSW_CDCLK_LIMIT)
> -			dev_priv->max_cdclk_freq = 450000;
> -		else if (IS_BDW_ULX(dev))
> -			dev_priv->max_cdclk_freq = 450000;
> -		else if (IS_BDW_ULT(dev))
> -			dev_priv->max_cdclk_freq = 540000;
> -		else
> -			dev_priv->max_cdclk_freq = 675000;
> +		switch (I915_READ(SWF_ILK(0x06)) & 0x3) {
> +		case 0:
> +			bios_max_cdclk_freq = 450000;
> +			break;
> +		case 1:
> +			bios_max_cdclk_freq = 540000;
> +			break;
> +		case 2:
> +			bios_max_cdclk_freq = 337500;
> +			break;
> +		case 3:
> +			bios_max_cdclk_freq = 675000;
> +			break;
> +		}
> +
> +		if (I915_READ(FUSE_STRAP) & HSW_CDCLK_LIMIT) {
> +			if (WARN_ON(bios_max_cdclk_freq != 450000))
> +				bios_max_cdclk_freq = 450000;
> +			max_cdclk_freq = 450000;
> +		} else if (IS_BDW_ULX(dev_priv)) {
> +			if (WARN_ON(bios_max_cdclk_freq > 540000))
> +				bios_max_cdclk_freq = 540000;
> +			max_cdclk_freq = 450000;
> +		} else if (IS_BDW_ULT(dev_priv)) {
> +			max_cdclk_freq = 540000;
> +		} else {
> +			max_cdclk_freq = 675000;
> +		}
> +
> +		if (bios_max_cdclk_freq > max_cdclk_freq) {
> +			DRM_DEBUG_KMS("VBIOS/GOP max cdclk (%d kHz) higher than basic limit (%d kHz), "
> +				      "assuming extra cooling is present\n",
> +				      bios_max_cdclk_freq, max_cdclk_freq);
> +			max_cdclk_freq = bios_max_cdclk_freq;
> +		} else if (bios_max_cdclk_freq < max_cdclk_freq) {
> +			DRM_DEBUG_KMS("VBIOS/GOP max cdclk (%d kHz) lower than basic limit (%d kHz), "
> +				      "ignoring it\n",
> +				      bios_max_cdclk_freq, max_cdclk_freq);
> +		}
for the reasons mentioned above, i would favor trusting lower values too.

regards,
Sivakumar
> +
> +		dev_priv->max_cdclk_freq = max_cdclk_freq;
>   	} else if (IS_CHERRYVIEW(dev)) {
>   		dev_priv->max_cdclk_freq = 320000;
>   	} else if (IS_VALLEYVIEW(dev)) {