[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Reduce Data Link N value for 1 lane DP->hdmi converters

Thu Mar 23 17:59:03 UTC 2017

On 03/23/2017 10:23 AM, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2017, Clint Taylor <clinton.a.taylor at intel.com> wrote:
>> On 03/23/2017 05:30 AM, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>> On Thu, 23 Mar 2017, clinton.a.taylor at intel.com wrote:
>>>> From: Clint Taylor <clinton.a.taylor at intel.com>
>>>>
>>>> Several major vendor USB-C->HDMI converters fail to recover a 5.4 GHz 1 lane
>>>> signal if the Data Link N is greater than 0x80000.
>>>> Patch detects when 1 lane 5.4 GHz signal is being used and makes the maximum
>>>> value 20 bit instead of the maximum specification supported 24 bit value.
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at intel.com>
>>>> Cc: Anusha Srivatsa <anusha.srivatsa at intel.com>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93578
>>
>> I will add to the commit message.
>>
>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Clint Taylor <clinton.a.taylor at intel.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h      |    2 ++
>>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c |   15 +++++++++++----
>>>>  2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
>>>> index 04c8f69..838d8d5 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
>>>> @@ -4869,6 +4869,8 @@ enum {
>>>>
>>>>  #define  DATA_LINK_M_N_MASK	(0xffffff)
>>>>  #define  DATA_LINK_N_MAX	(0x800000)
>>>> +/* Maximum N value useable on some DP->HDMI converters */
>>>> +#define  DATA_LINK_REDUCED_N_MAX (0x80000)
>>>>
>>>>  #define _PIPEA_DATA_N_G4X	0x70054
>>>>  #define _PIPEB_DATA_N_G4X	0x71054
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
>>>> index 010e5dd..6e1fdd2 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
>>>> @@ -6315,9 +6315,10 @@ static int intel_crtc_compute_config(struct intel_crtc *crtc,
>>>>  }
>>>>
>>>>  static void compute_m_n(unsigned int m, unsigned int n,
>>>> -			uint32_t *ret_m, uint32_t *ret_n)
>>>> +			uint32_t *ret_m, uint32_t *ret_n,
>>>> +			uint32_t max_link_n)
>>>>  {
>>>> -	*ret_n = min_t(unsigned int, roundup_pow_of_two(n), DATA_LINK_N_MAX);
>>>> +	*ret_n = min_t(unsigned int, roundup_pow_of_two(n), max_link_n);
>>>
>>> If there's evidence suggesting "certain other operating systems" always
>>> use a max (or fixed value) of 0x80000, perhaps we should just follow
>>> suit? Simpler and less magical.
>>>
>>
>> The other OS's don't appear to be fixed to 0x80000. The calculation in
>> i915 rounds up to the nearest power of 2 and the other OS's might have a
>> slightly different calculation to the nearest power of 2. Of course I
>> haven't seen the other OS's code to know their exact formula. HBR3 will
>> cause a higher value to be calculated and having a fixed value may cause
>> issues. The i915 formula works and reducing the value can cause
>> precision issues in the ratio with the pixel clock.
>>
>>>>  	*ret_m = div_u64((uint64_t) m * *ret_n, n);
>>>>  	intel_reduce_m_n_ratio(ret_m, ret_n);
>>>>  }
>>>> @@ -6327,14 +6328,20 @@ static void compute_m_n(unsigned int m, unsigned int n,
>>>>  		       int pixel_clock, int link_clock,
>>>>  		       struct intel_link_m_n *m_n)
>>>>  {
>>>> +	uint32_t max_link_n = DATA_LINK_N_MAX;
>>>>  	m_n->tu = 64;
>>>>
>>>> +	if ((nlanes==1) && (link_clock >= 540000))
>>>
>>> Is the problem really dependent on these conditions? You can get the
>>> same problematic N value with nlanes == 2 && link_clock == 270000 too.
>>>
>>
>> The offending device only supports a single DP lane up to HBR2.5. This
>> check matches the datasheet for the part. The offending device works
>> with our current calculation at 1 lane HBR (270000).
>
> Okay, so what bugs me about the approach here is that this adds an
> arbitrary condition to apply a quirk to a specific device.
>
> Instead of "if device X, then apply restriction A", this adds "if
> condition Y, then apply restriction A". If I understand you correctly,
> "condition Y" is a superset of "device X", i.e. Y happens also on
> devices other than X, but on device X condition Y always holds.
>
> I'd really like it if we could come up with a) a quirk that we apply
> only on the affected device(s), or b) rules for M/N that generally make
> sense with no need to resort to seeminly arbitrary exceptions.
>

I can detect the specific device through the DP OUI branch value 
returned during DP detect. I can also detect through the device ID 
string DPCD 0x503-0x508 currently not parsed in i915. Either would 
satisfy Device X, Condition Y, then apply workaround A.

I would prefer a solution for B (rules for M/N), but the code doesn't 
appear to be broken and I don't believe we should "Fix" something that 
is working. The device also works by changing the roundup_pow_of_two() 
to rounddown_pow_of_two() however that would apply the change to every 
device connected.

> With the latter I mean things like reducing the M/N before rounding N up
> to power of two (M and N are always divisible by 2, for example) or
> having intel_reduce_m_n_ratio() shift them right as long as they have
> bit 0 unset. At a glance, I'm not sure if this is enough to bring down
> the N to within the limits of the device, without intentional loss of
> precision.
>
> BR,
> Jani.
>
>
>>
>>> BR,
>>> Jani.
>>>
>>>> +		max_link_n = DATA_LINK_REDUCED_N_MAX;
>>>> +
>>>>  	compute_m_n(bits_per_pixel * pixel_clock,
>>>>  		    link_clock * nlanes * 8,
>>>> -		    &m_n->gmch_m, &m_n->gmch_n);
>>>> +		    &m_n->gmch_m, &m_n->gmch_n,
>>>> +		    max_link_n);
>>>>
>>>>  	compute_m_n(pixel_clock, link_clock,
>>>> -		    &m_n->link_m, &m_n->link_n);
>>>> +		    &m_n->link_m, &m_n->link_n,
>>>> +		    max_link_n);
>>>>  }
>>>>
>>>>  static inline bool intel_panel_use_ssc(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>>>
>>
>