[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v1½ 05/13] drm/i915/dp: generate and cache sink rate array for all DP, not just eDP 1.4
Jani Nikula
jani.nikula at intel.com
Fri Jan 27 19:52:05 UTC 2017
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 09:44:19PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> There is some conflation related to sink rates, making this change more
>> complicated than it would otherwise have to be. There are three changes
>> here that are rather difficult to split up:
>>
>> 1) Use the intel_dp->sink_rates array for all DP, not just eDP 1.4. We
>> initialize it from DPCD on eDP 1.4 like before, but generate it based
>> on DP_MAX_LINK_RATE on others. This reduces code complexity when we
>> need to use the sink rates; they are all always in the sink_rates
>> array.
>>
>> 2) Update the sink rate array whenever we read DPCD, and use the
>> information from there. This increases code readability when we need
>> the sink rates.
>>
>> 3) Disentangle fallback rate limiting from sink rates. In the code, the
>> max rate is a dynamic property of the *link*, not of the *sink*. Do
>> the limiting after intersecting the source and sink rates, which are
>> static properties of the devices.
>>
>> This paves the way for follow-up refactoring that I've refrained from
>> doing here to keep this change as simple as it possibly can.
>>
>> Cc: Manasi Navare <manasi.d.navare at intel.com>
>> Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at intel.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 76 ++++++++++++++++++---------
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp_link_training.c | 3 +-
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h | 4 +-
>> 3 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
>> index cc2523363c8d..d13ce6746542 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
>> @@ -133,6 +133,34 @@ static void vlv_steal_power_sequencer(struct drm_device *dev,
>> enum pipe pipe);
>> static void intel_dp_unset_edid(struct intel_dp *intel_dp);
>>
>> +static int intel_dp_num_rates(u8 link_bw_code)
>> +{
>> + switch (link_bw_code) {
>> + default:
>> + WARN(1, "invalid max DP link bw val %x, using 1.62Gbps\n",
>> + link_bw_code);
>> + case DP_LINK_BW_1_62:
>> + return 1;
>> + case DP_LINK_BW_2_7:
>> + return 2;
>> + case DP_LINK_BW_5_4:
>> + return 3;
>> + }
>> +}
>> +
>> +/* update sink rates from dpcd */
>> +static void intel_dp_set_sink_rates(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
>> +{
>> + int i, num_rates;
>> +
>> + num_rates = intel_dp_num_rates(intel_dp->dpcd[DP_MAX_LINK_RATE]);
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < num_rates; i++)
>> + intel_dp->sink_rates[i] = default_rates[i];
>> +
>> + intel_dp->num_sink_rates = num_rates;
>> +}
>> +
>> static int
>> intel_dp_max_link_bw(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
>> {
>> @@ -205,19 +233,6 @@ intel_dp_downstream_max_dotclock(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
>> return max_dotclk;
>> }
>>
>> -static int
>> -intel_dp_sink_rates(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, const int **sink_rates)
>> -{
>> - if (intel_dp->num_sink_rates) {
>> - *sink_rates = intel_dp->sink_rates;
>> - return intel_dp->num_sink_rates;
>> - }
>> -
>> - *sink_rates = default_rates;
>> -
>> - return (intel_dp->max_sink_link_bw >> 3) + 1;
>> -}
>> -
>> static void
>> intel_dp_set_source_rates(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
>> {
>> @@ -285,15 +300,22 @@ static int intel_dp_find_rate(const int *rates, int len, int rate)
>> static int intel_dp_common_rates(struct intel_dp *intel_dp,
>> int *common_rates)
>> {
>> - const int *sink_rates;
>> - int sink_len;
>> + int max_rate = drm_dp_bw_code_to_link_rate(intel_dp->max_sink_link_bw);
>> + int i, common_len;
>>
>> - sink_len = intel_dp_sink_rates(intel_dp, &sink_rates);
>> + common_len = intersect_rates(intel_dp->source_rates,
>> + intel_dp->num_source_rates,
>> + intel_dp->sink_rates,
>> + intel_dp->num_sink_rates,
>> + common_rates);
>>
>> - return intersect_rates(intel_dp->source_rates,
>> - intel_dp->num_source_rates,
>> - sink_rates, sink_len,
>> - common_rates);
>> + /* Limit results by potentially reduced max rate */
>> + for (i = 0; i < common_len; i++) {
>> + if (common_rates[common_len - i - 1] <= max_rate)
>> + return common_len - i;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> }
>>
>> static int intel_dp_link_rate_index(struct intel_dp *intel_dp,
>> @@ -1501,8 +1523,7 @@ static void snprintf_int_array(char *str, size_t len,
>>
>> static void intel_dp_print_rates(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
>> {
>> - const int *sink_rates;
>> - int sink_len, common_len;
>> + int common_len;
>> int common_rates[DP_MAX_SUPPORTED_RATES];
>> char str[128]; /* FIXME: too big for stack? */
>>
>> @@ -1513,8 +1534,8 @@ static void intel_dp_print_rates(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
>> intel_dp->source_rates, intel_dp->num_source_rates);
>> DRM_DEBUG_KMS("source rates: %s\n", str);
>>
>> - sink_len = intel_dp_sink_rates(intel_dp, &sink_rates);
>> - snprintf_int_array(str, sizeof(str), sink_rates, sink_len);
>> + snprintf_int_array(str, sizeof(str),
>> + intel_dp->sink_rates, intel_dp->num_sink_rates);
>> DRM_DEBUG_KMS("sink rates: %s\n", str);
>>
>> common_len = intel_dp_common_rates(intel_dp, common_rates);
>> @@ -1580,7 +1601,8 @@ int intel_dp_rate_select(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, int rate)
>> void intel_dp_compute_rate(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, int port_clock,
>> uint8_t *link_bw, uint8_t *rate_select)
>> {
>> - if (intel_dp->num_sink_rates) {
>> + /* eDP 1.4 rate select method. */
>> + if (is_edp(intel_dp) && intel_dp->edp_dpcd[0] >= 0x03) {
>
> I was convinced that this wasn't a mandatory feature, but the spec does
> seem to say "The table must contain at least one non-zero value at the
> first (lowest DPCD address) location."
>
> But given historical evidence I'm still 99% convinced we'll eventually
> run into some panel somewhere that does this wrong, so I don't really
> like this idea.
Then I think this should be fixed in intel_edp_init_dpcd() by a)
checking that there is at least one non-zero value, falling back to
intel_dp_set_source_rates() if not, and b) setting a new
intel_dp->use_rate_selet field at that time, which will be used instead
of (is_edp(intel_dp) && intel_dp->edp_dpcd[0] >= 0x03). Sound good?
BR,
Jani.
>
>> *link_bw = 0;
>> *rate_select =
>> intel_dp_rate_select(intel_dp, port_clock);
>> @@ -3713,6 +3735,8 @@ intel_edp_init_dpcd(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
>> intel_dp->sink_rates[i] = (val * 200) / 10;
>> }
>> intel_dp->num_sink_rates = i;
>> + } else {
>> + intel_dp_set_sink_rates(intel_dp);
>> }
>>
>> return true;
>> @@ -3725,6 +3749,8 @@ intel_dp_get_dpcd(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
>> if (!intel_dp_read_dpcd(intel_dp))
>> return false;
>>
>> + intel_dp_set_sink_rates(intel_dp);
>> +
>> if (drm_dp_dpcd_read(&intel_dp->aux, DP_SINK_COUNT,
>> &intel_dp->sink_count, 1) < 0)
>> return false;
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp_link_training.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp_link_training.c
>> index 0048b520baf7..694ad0ffb523 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp_link_training.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp_link_training.c
>> @@ -146,7 +146,8 @@ intel_dp_link_training_clock_recovery(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
>> link_config[1] |= DP_LANE_COUNT_ENHANCED_FRAME_EN;
>> drm_dp_dpcd_write(&intel_dp->aux, DP_LINK_BW_SET, link_config, 2);
>>
>> - if (intel_dp->num_sink_rates)
>> + /* eDP 1.4 rate select method. */
>> + if (!link_bw)
>> drm_dp_dpcd_write(&intel_dp->aux, DP_LINK_RATE_SET,
>> &rate_select, 1);
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
>> index f132d4aea1ad..b914dd543362 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
>> @@ -933,8 +933,8 @@ struct intel_dp {
>> /* source rates */
>> int num_source_rates;
>> const int *source_rates;
>> - /* sink rates as reported by DP_SUPPORTED_LINK_RATES */
>> - uint8_t num_sink_rates;
>> + /* sink rates as reported by DP_MAX_LINK_RATE/DP_SUPPORTED_LINK_RATES */
>> + int num_sink_rates;
>> int sink_rates[DP_MAX_SUPPORTED_RATES];
>> /* Max lane count for the sink as per DPCD registers */
>> uint8_t max_sink_lane_count;
>> --
>> 2.1.4
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list