[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 1/2] drm/i915/gmbus: Increase the Bytes per Rd/Wr Op

[Jani Nikula]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2018, Ramalingam C <ramalingam.c at intel.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 April 2018 11:39 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 02:25:32PM +0530, Ramalingam C wrote:
>>> >From Gen9 onwards Bspec says HW supports Max Bytes per single RD/WR op is
>>> 511Bytes instead of previous 256Bytes used in SW.
>>>
>>> This change allows the max bytes per op upto 511Bytes from Gen9 onwards.
>>>
>>> v2:
>>>    No Change.
>>> v3:
>>>    Inline function for max_xfer_size and renaming of the macro.[Jani]
>>>
>>> Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at intel.com>
>>> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ramalingam C <ramalingam.c at intel.com>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h  |  1 +
>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c | 11 +++++++++--
>>>   2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
>>> index 475cac07d3e6..be6114a0e8ab 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
>>> @@ -3013,6 +3013,7 @@ enum i915_power_well_id {
>>>   #define   GMBUS_CYCLE_STOP	(4<<25)
>>>   #define   GMBUS_BYTE_COUNT_SHIFT 16
>>>   #define   GMBUS_BYTE_COUNT_MAX   256U
>>> +#define   GEN9_GMBUS_BYTE_COUNT_MAX 511U
>>>   #define   GMBUS_SLAVE_INDEX_SHIFT 8
>>>   #define   GMBUS_SLAVE_ADDR_SHIFT 1
>>>   #define   GMBUS_SLAVE_READ	(1<<0)
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c
>>> index e6875509bcd9..4367827d7661 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c
>>> @@ -361,6 +361,13 @@ gmbus_wait_idle(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>>>   	return ret;
>>>   }
>>>   
>>> +static inline
>>> +unsigned int gmbus_max_xfer_size(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>>> +{
>>> +	return (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 9) ? GEN9_GMBUS_BYTE_COUNT_MAX :
>>> +		GMBUS_BYTE_COUNT_MAX;
>> Hmm. You sure about this 256 limit on older HW? The spec does sort of
>> say that 0-256 is the valid range, but the SPT+ docs still have that
>> same text, and the register has always had 9 bits for byte count. I
>> don't see any statements saying that they changed this in any way for
>> SPT. It only talks about >511 bytes needing the special treatment.
>>
>> If we do this the I think you should just drop the defines and put the
>> raw numbers into this function. The extra indirection just makes life
>> harder. Also pointless parens around the GEN>9 check.
> Even I couldn't get any place where BSpec says 256Bytes is the limit for 
> any platform. Everywhere 9bits are used.
> And when I cross verified with other OS usage 511Bytes is used as limit 
> across all platforms.
>
> Just to be cautious for not breaking any older platforms out in linux 
> world, I limited the extension of the limit to the known
> and easily testable platforms at my desk (Gen9+)
>
> Do you suggest we should apply 511Bytes as max limit for all platforms?
> Do we have any means to test this new limit on all supported legacy 
> platforms?
>
> Except enabling the full potential of the HW in SW, I dont see any ROI 
> here as most of the GMBUS reqs are <256Bytes.
> Only in case of HDCP2.2 we need single read cycle for 538Bytes.
>
> we have couple of options here: Please share your opinion to choose one 
> of them.
> 1. Just dont change the upper limit for RD/WR. Keep it as it is at 
> 256Bytes. Anyway no user demands it.
> 2. As per HW capability, Change the upper limit for RD/WR to 511Bytes 
> for all platforms. This is needs the functional verification on all 
> legacy plat supported.
> 3. Change the upper limit for RD/WR to 511Bytes for newer platforms, say 
> Gen9+.

Please let's not change the limit for old platforms for absolutely no
gain. And if Ville insists anyway, let's leave that as a separate
follow-up change that can easily be reverted later.

I might consider using the 511 limit only for platforms that
HAS_GMBUS_BURST_READ too.

The original limit seems to have been added in 9535c4757b88 ("drm/i915:
cope with large i2c transfers") citing "the specs". Any recollection
anyone? Chris?

BR,
Jani.


>
> --Ram
>>
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>   static int
>>>   gmbus_xfer_read_chunk(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>>>   		      unsigned short addr, u8 *buf, unsigned int len,
>>> @@ -400,7 +407,7 @@ gmbus_xfer_read(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, struct i2c_msg *msg,
>>>   	int ret;
>>>   
>>>   	do {
>>> -		len = min(rx_size, GMBUS_BYTE_COUNT_MAX);
>>> +		len = min(rx_size, gmbus_max_xfer_size(dev_priv));
>>>   
>>>   		ret = gmbus_xfer_read_chunk(dev_priv, msg->addr,
>>>   					    buf, len, gmbus1_index);
>>> @@ -462,7 +469,7 @@ gmbus_xfer_write(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, struct i2c_msg *msg,
>>>   	int ret;
>>>   
>>>   	do {
>>> -		len = min(tx_size, GMBUS_BYTE_COUNT_MAX);
>>> +		len = min(tx_size, gmbus_max_xfer_size(dev_priv));
>>>   
>>>   		ret = gmbus_xfer_write_chunk(dev_priv, msg->addr, buf, len,
>>>   					     gmbus1_index);
>>> -- 
>>> 2.7.4
>

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center