[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v10 04/11] drm/i915/dp: Allow big joiner modes in intel_dp_mode_valid(), v3.

[Ville Syrjälä]

On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 09:26:45AM -0700, Navare, Manasi wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 02:52:47PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 12:04:10PM -0700, Navare, Manasi wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 02:26:34PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 02:45:28PM -0700, Manasi Navare wrote:
> > > > > From: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst at linux.intel.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > Small changes to intel_dp_mode_valid(), allow listing modes that
> > > > > can only be supported in the bigjoiner configuration, which is
> > > > > not supported yet.
> > > > > 
> > > > > eDP does not support bigjoiner, so do not expose bigjoiner only
> > > > > modes on the eDP port.
> > > > > 
> > > > > v7:
> > > > > * Add can_bigjoiner() helper (Ville)
> > > > > * Pass bigjoiner to plane_size validation (Ville)
> > > > > v6:
> > > > > * Rebase after dp_downstream mode valid changes (Manasi)
> > > > > v5:
> > > > > * Increase max plane width to support 8K with bigjoiner (Maarten)
> > > > > v4:
> > > > > * Rebase (Manasi)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Changes since v1:
> > > > > - Disallow bigjoiner on eDP.
> > > > > Changes since v2:
> > > > > - Rename intel_dp_downstream_max_dotclock to intel_dp_max_dotclock,
> > > > >   and split off the downstream and source checking to its own function.
> > > > >   (Ville)
> > > > > v3:
> > > > > * Rebase (Manasi)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Manasi Navare <manasi.d.navare at intel.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst at linux.intel.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c |   5 +-
> > > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.h |   3 +-
> > > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c      | 126 +++++++++++++++----
> > > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_mst.c  |   2 +-
> > > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dsi.c     |   2 +-
> > > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_hdmi.c    |   2 +-
> > > > >  6 files changed, 111 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> > > > > index 723766b1eae3..cc540c7b7dcd 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> > > > > @@ -17642,7 +17642,8 @@ intel_mode_valid(struct drm_device *dev,
> > > > >  
> > > > >  enum drm_mode_status
> > > > >  intel_mode_valid_max_plane_size(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > > > > -				const struct drm_display_mode *mode)
> > > > > +				const struct drm_display_mode *mode,
> > > > > +				bool bigjoiner)
> > > > >  {
> > > > >  	int plane_width_max, plane_height_max;
> > > > >  
> > > > > @@ -17659,7 +17660,7 @@ intel_mode_valid_max_plane_size(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > > > >  	 * too big for that.
> > > > >  	 */
> > > > >  	if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 11) {
> > > > > -		plane_width_max = 5120;
> > > > > +		plane_width_max = 5120 << bigjoiner;
> > > > >  		plane_height_max = 4320;
> > > > >  	} else {
> > > > >  		plane_width_max = 5120;
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.h
> > > > > index d10b7c8cde3f..3d860a9da8fe 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.h
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.h
> > > > > @@ -496,7 +496,8 @@ u32 intel_plane_fb_max_stride(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > > > >  bool intel_plane_can_remap(const struct intel_plane_state *plane_state);
> > > > >  enum drm_mode_status
> > > > >  intel_mode_valid_max_plane_size(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > > > > -				const struct drm_display_mode *mode);
> > > > > +				const struct drm_display_mode *mode,
> > > > > +				bool bigjoiner);
> > > > >  enum phy intel_port_to_phy(struct drm_i915_private *i915, enum port port);
> > > > >  bool is_trans_port_sync_mode(const struct intel_crtc_state *state);
> > > > >  
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c
> > > > > index 8a522edd7386..af2ff425e5d5 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c
> > > > > @@ -247,6 +247,29 @@ intel_dp_max_data_rate(int max_link_clock, int max_lanes)
> > > > >  	return max_link_clock * max_lanes;
> > > > >  }
> > > > >  
> > > > > +static int source_max_dotclock(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, bool allow_bigjoiner)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	struct intel_digital_port *intel_dig_port = dp_to_dig_port(intel_dp);
> > > > > +	struct intel_encoder *encoder = &intel_dig_port->base;
> > > > > +	struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(encoder->base.dev);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	if (allow_bigjoiner && INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 11 && !intel_dp_is_edp(intel_dp))
> > > > > +		return 2 * dev_priv->max_dotclk_freq;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	return dev_priv->max_dotclk_freq;
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static int
> > > > > +intel_dp_max_dotclock(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, bool allow_bigjoiner)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	int max_dotclk = source_max_dotclock(intel_dp, allow_bigjoiner);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	if (intel_dp->dfp.max_dotclock)
> > > > 
> > > > No. dfp checks should stay where they are.
> > > 
> > > I am using dfp.max_dotclock because we populate that with drm_dp_downstream_max_dotclock()
> > > should that be used here directly from drm_dp_downstream_max_dotclock instead of using dfp.maxdotclock ?
> > 
> > Can you explain how bigjoiner and DFP dotclock limits relate to each
> > other?
> 
> Before the dfp dotclock checks were added, we were obtaining the max dotclock as min (source_max_dotclock, downstream max dotclock from dpcd)
> And thats why I was using the dfp.max_dotclock
> 
> But while addressing your feedback , I have now max_dotclock = source max dotclock
> and the downstream max dotclock checks happen in intel_dp_mode_valid_downstream(), so I think we dont need to consider
> this here in max dotclock computation.
> 
> Is this correct?

DFP's have nothing to do with bigjoiner. It is a purely internal
implemntation detail of our display engine. So mixing up the two
would be very wrong.

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel