[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 01/15] drm/vblank: Allow dynamic per-crtc max_vblank_count

Daniel Vetter daniel at ffwll.ch
Wed Nov 21 09:27:27 UTC 2018


On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 06:59:45PM +0200, Ville Syrjala wrote:
> From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> 
> On i965gm we need to adjust max_vblank_count dynamically
> depending on whether the TV encoder is used or not. To
> that end add a per-crtc max_vblank_count that takes
> precedence over its device wide counterpart. The driver
> can now call drm_crtc_set_max_vblank_count() to configure
> the per-crtc value before calling drm_vblank_on().
> 
> Also looks like there was some discussion about exynos needing
> similar treatment.
> 
> Cc: stable at vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Inki Dae <inki.dae at samsung.com>
> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch>
> Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>  include/drm/drm_vblank.h     |  8 ++++++++
>  2 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
> index 98e091175921..c3abbdca8aba 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
> @@ -105,13 +105,20 @@ static void store_vblank(struct drm_device *dev, unsigned int pipe,
>  	write_sequnlock(&vblank->seqlock);
>  }
>  
> +static u32 drm_max_vblank_count(struct drm_device *dev, unsigned int pipe)
> +{
> +	struct drm_vblank_crtc *vblank = &dev->vblank[pipe];
> +
> +	return vblank->max_vblank_count ?: dev->max_vblank_count;
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * "No hw counter" fallback implementation of .get_vblank_counter() hook,
>   * if there is no useable hardware frame counter available.
>   */
>  static u32 drm_vblank_no_hw_counter(struct drm_device *dev, unsigned int pipe)
>  {
> -	WARN_ON_ONCE(dev->max_vblank_count != 0);
> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(drm_max_vblank_count(dev, pipe) != 0);
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> @@ -198,6 +205,7 @@ static void drm_update_vblank_count(struct drm_device *dev, unsigned int pipe,
>  	ktime_t t_vblank;
>  	int count = DRM_TIMESTAMP_MAXRETRIES;
>  	int framedur_ns = vblank->framedur_ns;
> +	u32 max_vblank_count = drm_max_vblank_count(dev, pipe);
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * Interrupts were disabled prior to this call, so deal with counter
> @@ -216,9 +224,9 @@ static void drm_update_vblank_count(struct drm_device *dev, unsigned int pipe,
>  		rc = drm_get_last_vbltimestamp(dev, pipe, &t_vblank, in_vblank_irq);
>  	} while (cur_vblank != __get_vblank_counter(dev, pipe) && --count > 0);
>  
> -	if (dev->max_vblank_count != 0) {
> +	if (max_vblank_count) {
>  		/* trust the hw counter when it's around */
> -		diff = (cur_vblank - vblank->last) & dev->max_vblank_count;
> +		diff = (cur_vblank - vblank->last) & max_vblank_count;
>  	} else if (rc && framedur_ns) {
>  		u64 diff_ns = ktime_to_ns(ktime_sub(t_vblank, vblank->time));
>  
> @@ -258,7 +266,8 @@ static void drm_update_vblank_count(struct drm_device *dev, unsigned int pipe,
>  		      pipe, vblank->count, diff, cur_vblank, vblank->last);
>  
>  	if (diff == 0) {
> -		WARN_ON_ONCE(cur_vblank != vblank->last);
> +		WARN_ON_ONCE(max_vblank_count &&
> +			     cur_vblank != vblank->last);

Unrelated bugfix for this warning? Should be a separate patch I think, or
I'm missing something.

>  		return;
>  	}
>  
> @@ -1204,6 +1213,28 @@ void drm_crtc_vblank_reset(struct drm_crtc *crtc)
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_crtc_vblank_reset);
>  
> +/**
> + * drm_crtc_set_max_vblank_count - configure the hw max vblank counter value
> + * @crtc: CRTC in question
> + * @max_vblank_count: max hardware vblank counter value
> + *
> + * Update the maximum hardware vblank counter value for @crtc. Useful
> + * for hardware where the operation of the hardware vblank counter
> + * depends on the active display configuration.
> + *
> + * If used, must be called before drm_vblank_on().

I think we should check this at runtime with a WARN_ON. Plus make the
comment here a bit clearer that this is indeed for runtime adjusting of
the max_vblank_count, in cases where that depends upon the connected
outputs.

> + */
> +void drm_crtc_set_max_vblank_count(struct drm_crtc *crtc,
> +				   u32 max_vblank_count)
> +{
> +	struct drm_device *dev = crtc->dev;
> +	unsigned int pipe = drm_crtc_index(crtc);
> +	struct drm_vblank_crtc *vblank = &dev->vblank[pipe];
> +
> +	vblank->max_vblank_count = max_vblank_count;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_crtc_set_max_vblank_count);
> +
>  /**
>   * drm_crtc_vblank_on - enable vblank events on a CRTC
>   * @crtc: CRTC in question
> diff --git a/include/drm/drm_vblank.h b/include/drm/drm_vblank.h
> index 6ad9630d4f48..ecb2cf9913e2 100644
> --- a/include/drm/drm_vblank.h
> +++ b/include/drm/drm_vblank.h
> @@ -128,6 +128,12 @@ struct drm_vblank_crtc {
>  	 * @last: Protected by &drm_device.vbl_lock, used for wraparound handling.
>  	 */
>  	u32 last;
> +	/**
> +	 * @max_vblank_count: Maximum value of the hardware vblank counter.
> +	 * If non-zero this takes precedence over &drm_device.max_vblank_count
> +	 * for this crtc. Otherwise &drm_device.max_vblank_count is used.
> +	 */

I'd add "This should be set by calling drm_crtc_set_max_vblank_count()."

And please also add a note to the kerneldoc of drm_driver.max_vblank_count
pointing at &drm_vblank_crtc.max_vblank_count for per-crtc limits.

Aside from the nits lgtm. I think I'll skip looking at the TV out stuff
though ...

Cheers, Daniel

> +	u32 max_vblank_count;
>  	/**
>  	 * @inmodeset: Tracks whether the vblank is disabled due to a modeset.
>  	 * For legacy driver bit 2 additionally tracks whether an additional
> @@ -206,4 +212,6 @@ bool drm_calc_vbltimestamp_from_scanoutpos(struct drm_device *dev,
>  void drm_calc_timestamping_constants(struct drm_crtc *crtc,
>  				     const struct drm_display_mode *mode);
>  wait_queue_head_t *drm_crtc_vblank_waitqueue(struct drm_crtc *crtc);
> +void drm_crtc_set_max_vblank_count(struct drm_crtc *crtc,
> +				   u32 max_vblank_count);
>  #endif
> -- 
> 2.18.1
> 

-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch


More information about the Intel-gfx mailing list