[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Use SWF06 to figure out max cdclk for BDW
Thulasimani, Sivakumar
sivakumar.thulasimani at intel.com
Tue Feb 23 10:52:01 UTC 2016
On 2/16/2016 3:35 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 07:13:05AM +0530, Thulasimani, Sivakumar wrote:
>>
>> 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.
> We definitely need a way to validate the register value before we trust
> it for lower values. I suppose we might be able to look at bits 31:16
> since those should store the current cdclk "decimal" value. If that part
> looks reasonable, we might be able to trust the "max cdclk" bits as well.
it seems the bits 31:16 are used only by VBIOS and not GOP, so that wont
help.
we need to come up with some other method to confirm the value or verify
if intel gop is loaded. i will get back if i can find such a mechanism.
>> 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 :).
> For SKL it seems a bit easier, since it apparently just stores the max
> cdclk in 10.1 decimal fixed point in bits 10:0. So invalid/uninitialized
> values would be easier to spot.
>
> Hmm. 11 bits and 10.1 fixed point format, I wonder if it's really
> decimal and not binary fixed point...
it uses the same value programmed in CDCLK_CTL register.
i.e 01 0011 0011 1b = 308.57MHz
regards,
Sivakumar
>>> 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)) {
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/attachments/20160223/19a3d8f2/attachment.html>
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list