[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/display: Do both crawl and squash when changing cdclk
Srivatsa, Anusha
anusha.srivatsa at intel.com
Thu Oct 20 19:43:36 UTC 2022
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2022 8:15 AM
> To: Vivekanandan, Balasubramani
> <balasubramani.vivekanandan at intel.com>
> Cc: Srivatsa, Anusha <anusha.srivatsa at intel.com>; intel-
> gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/display: Do both crawl and
> squash when changing cdclk
>
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 08:12:04PM +0530, Balasubramani Vivekanandan
> wrote:
> > On 13.10.2022 16:32, Anusha Srivatsa wrote:
> > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> > >
> > > For MTL, changing cdclk from between certain frequencies has both
> > > squash and crawl. Use the current cdclk config and the new(desired)
> > > cdclk config to construtc a mid cdclk config.
> > > Set the cdclk twice:
> > > - Current cdclk -> mid cdclk
> > > - mid cdclk -> desired cdclk
> > >
> > > v2: Add check in intel_modeset_calc_cdclk() to avoid cdclk change
> > > via modeset for platforms that support squash_crawl sequences(Ville)
> > >
> > > v3: Add checks for:
> > > - scenario where only slow clock is used and cdclk is actually 0
> > > (bringing up display).
> > > - PLLs are on before looking up the waveform.
> > > - Squash and crawl capability checks.(Ville)
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Anusha Srivatsa <anusha.srivatsa at intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> >
> > Please add the Bspec number.
> >
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_cdclk.c | 157
> > > +++++++++++++++++----
> > > 1 file changed, 128 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_cdclk.c
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_cdclk.c
> > > index ad401357ab66..430b4cb0a8ab 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_cdclk.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_cdclk.c
> > > @@ -1675,7 +1675,7 @@ static u32 cdclk_squash_waveform(struct
> drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > > const struct intel_cdclk_vals *table = dev_priv->display.cdclk.table;
> > > int i;
> > >
> > > - if (cdclk == dev_priv->display.cdclk.hw.bypass)
> > > + if (cdclk == dev_priv->display.cdclk.hw.bypass || cdclk == 0)
> > > return 0;
> > >
> > > for (i = 0; table[i].refclk; i++)
> > > @@ -1689,37 +1689,72 @@ static u32 cdclk_squash_waveform(struct
> drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > > return 0xffff;
> > > }
> > >
> > > -static void bxt_set_cdclk(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > > - const struct intel_cdclk_config *cdclk_config,
> > > - enum pipe pipe)
> > > +static int cdclk_squash_divider(u16 waveform) {
> > > + return hweight16(waveform ?: 0xffff); }
> > > +
> > > +static bool cdclk_crawl_and_squash(struct drm_i915_private *i915,
> > > + const struct intel_cdclk_config
> *old_cdclk_config,
> > > + const struct intel_cdclk_config
> *new_cdclk_config,
> > > + struct intel_cdclk_config *mid_cdclk_config)
> {
> >
> > I was thinking of asking to rename this function to a more descriptive
> > one, but then I myself was not able to come up with one.
> > For a fresh eyes, it is difficult to make out what this function is
> > actually doing. Can you please add a summary as a comment above this
> > function pointing out what is mid_cdclk and whats the meaning of its
> > return value.
> >
> > > + u16 old_waveform = cdclk_squash_waveform(i915, old_cdclk_config-
> >cdclk);
> > > + u16 new_waveform = cdclk_squash_waveform(i915,
> new_cdclk_config->cdclk);
> > > + u16 mid_waveform;
> > > + int size = 16;
> > > + int div = 2;
> > > +
> > > + /* Return if both Squash and Crawl are not present */
> > > + if (!HAS_CDCLK_CRAWL(i915) || !has_cdclk_squasher(i915))
> > > + return false;
> >
> > Can cdclk_squasher feature availability be also made a part of
> > device_info structure like cdclk_crawl and create a macro similar to
> > HAS_CDCLK_CRAWL?
> > Like Ville said it looks bit weird. Also we would avoid adding
> > platform checks inside has_cdclk_squasher() function like it is done
> > now in your second patch.
> >
> > > +
> > > + /* Return if Squash only or Crawl only is the desired action */
> > > + if (old_cdclk_config->vco <= 0 || new_cdclk_config->vco <= 0 ||
> > > + old_cdclk_config->vco == new_cdclk_config->vco ||
> > > + old_waveform == new_waveform)
> > > + return false;
> > > +
> > > + *mid_cdclk_config = *new_cdclk_config;
> > > +
> > > + /* If moving to a higher cdclk(squash) the mid cdclk config
> > > + * should have the new (squash) waveform.
> > > + * If moving to a lower cdclk (crawl) the mid cdclk config
> > > + * should have the new vco.
> > > + */
> > > +
> > > + if (cdclk_squash_divider(new_waveform) >
> cdclk_squash_divider(old_waveform)) {
> > > + mid_cdclk_config->vco = old_cdclk_config->vco;
> > > + mid_waveform = new_waveform;
> > > + } else {
> > > + mid_cdclk_config->vco = new_cdclk_config->vco;
> > > + mid_waveform = old_waveform;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + mid_cdclk_config->cdclk =
> DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(cdclk_squash_divider(mid_waveform) *
> > > + mid_cdclk_config->vco, size
> * div);
> > > +
> > > + /* make sure the mid clock came out sane */
> > > +
> > > + drm_WARN_ON(&i915->drm, mid_cdclk_config->cdclk <
> > > + min(old_cdclk_config->cdclk, new_cdclk_config->cdclk));
> > > + drm_WARN_ON(&i915->drm, mid_cdclk_config->cdclk >
> > > + i915->display.cdclk.max_cdclk_freq);
> > > + drm_WARN_ON(&i915->drm, cdclk_squash_waveform(i915,
> mid_cdclk_config->cdclk) !=
> > > + mid_waveform);
> > > +
> > > + return true;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static void _bxt_set_cdclk(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > > + const struct intel_cdclk_config *cdclk_config,
> > > + enum pipe pipe)
> > > {
> > > int cdclk = cdclk_config->cdclk;
> > > int vco = cdclk_config->vco;
> > > u32 val;
> > > u16 waveform;
> > > int clock;
> > > - int ret;
> > > -
> > > - /* Inform power controller of upcoming frequency change. */
> > > - if (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 11)
> > > - ret = skl_pcode_request(&dev_priv->uncore,
> SKL_PCODE_CDCLK_CONTROL,
> > > - SKL_CDCLK_PREPARE_FOR_CHANGE,
> > > - SKL_CDCLK_READY_FOR_CHANGE,
> > > - SKL_CDCLK_READY_FOR_CHANGE, 3);
> > > - else
> > > - /*
> > > - * BSpec requires us to wait up to 150usec, but that leads to
> > > - * timeouts; the 2ms used here is based on experiment.
> > > - */
> > > - ret = snb_pcode_write_timeout(&dev_priv->uncore,
> > > -
> HSW_PCODE_DE_WRITE_FREQ_REQ,
> > > - 0x80000000, 150, 2);
> > > - if (ret) {
> > > - drm_err(&dev_priv->drm,
> > > - "Failed to inform PCU about cdclk change (err %d,
> freq %d)\n",
> > > - ret, cdclk);
> > > - return;
> > > - }
> > >
> > > if (HAS_CDCLK_CRAWL(dev_priv) && dev_priv->display.cdclk.hw.vco
> > 0 && vco > 0) {
> > > if (dev_priv->display.cdclk.hw.vco != vco) @@ -1772,6
> +1807,44 @@
> > > static void bxt_set_cdclk(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > >
> > > if (pipe != INVALID_PIPE)
> > >
> intel_crtc_wait_for_next_vblank(intel_crtc_for_pipe(dev_priv,
> > > pipe));
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static void bxt_set_cdclk(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > > + const struct intel_cdclk_config *cdclk_config,
> > > + enum pipe pipe)
> > > +{
> >
> > bxt_set_cdclk() is now bloated as it is reused for new platforms with
> > new features resulting in too many condition checks. I see it is now
> > time to switch to a new set_cdclk() function. I would prefer a new
> > function for platforms starting from which supports squash/crawl
> > feature and add this new crawl_and_squash feature implementation to
> > the same function. But definitely I dislike using bxt_set_cdclk for MTL.
>
> bxt vs. icl split might make sense since there are a bunch of if-else along
> those lines. Beyond that it all we'd achieve is code duplication I think.
>
> Well, we might be able to avoid some code duplication if we managed to
> chunk the different parts of bxt_set_cdclk() into lower level subfunctions,
> and just cobble together higher level variants (crawl+squash,just crawl,just
> squash, neither). But basically all of those are just subsets of the
> crawl+squash version, hence the duplication.
I agree.
> Another approach I was musing about was to add vfuncs for lower level
> operations (pll enable, pll disable, etc.) to get rid of the if-else stuff. But
> dunno if enough of the platforms would fit that model to make it sensible.
I will have to explore this myself.
> >
> > > + struct intel_cdclk_config mid_cdclk_config;
> > > + int cdclk = cdclk_config->cdclk;
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + /* Inform power controller of upcoming frequency change. */
> > > + if (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 11)
> > > + ret = skl_pcode_request(&dev_priv->uncore,
> SKL_PCODE_CDCLK_CONTROL,
> > > + SKL_CDCLK_PREPARE_FOR_CHANGE,
> > > + SKL_CDCLK_READY_FOR_CHANGE,
> > > + SKL_CDCLK_READY_FOR_CHANGE, 3);
> > > + else
> > > + /*
> > > + * BSpec requires us to wait up to 150usec, but that leads to
> > > + * timeouts; the 2ms used here is based on experiment.
> > > + */
> > > + ret = snb_pcode_write_timeout(&dev_priv->uncore,
> > > +
> HSW_PCODE_DE_WRITE_FREQ_REQ,
> > > + 0x80000000, 150, 2);
> > > + if (ret) {
> > > + drm_err(&dev_priv->drm,
> > > + "Failed to inform PCU about cdclk change (err %d,
> freq %d)\n",
> > > + ret, cdclk);
> > > + return;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (cdclk_crawl_and_squash(dev_priv, &dev_priv->display.cdclk.hw,
> > > + cdclk_config, &mid_cdclk_config)) {
> > > + _bxt_set_cdclk(dev_priv, &mid_cdclk_config, pipe);
> > > + _bxt_set_cdclk(dev_priv, cdclk_config, pipe);
> > > + } else {
> > > + _bxt_set_cdclk(dev_priv, cdclk_config, pipe);
> > > + }
> > >
> > > if (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 11) {
> > > ret = snb_pcode_write(&dev_priv->uncore,
> SKL_PCODE_CDCLK_CONTROL,
> > > @@ -1944,6 +2017,27 @@ void intel_cdclk_uninit_hw(struct
> drm_i915_private *i915)
> > > skl_cdclk_uninit_hw(i915);
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static bool intel_cdclk_can_crawl_and_squash(struct drm_i915_private
> *i915,
> > > + const struct intel_cdclk_config *a,
> > > + const struct intel_cdclk_config *b) {
> > > + u16 old_waveform;
> > > + u16 new_waveform;
> > > +
> > > + if (a->vco == 0 || b->vco == 0)
> > > + return false;
> > > +
> > > + if (HAS_CDCLK_CRAWL(i915) && has_cdclk_squasher(i915)) {
> > > + old_waveform = cdclk_squash_waveform(i915, a->cdclk);
> > > + new_waveform = cdclk_squash_waveform(i915, b->cdclk);
> > > + } else {
> > > + return false;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + return a->vco != b->vco &&
> > > + old_waveform != new_waveform; }
> > > +
> > > static bool intel_cdclk_can_crawl(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > > const struct intel_cdclk_config *a,
> > > const struct intel_cdclk_config *b) @@ -
> 2750,9 +2844,14 @@
> > > int intel_modeset_calc_cdclk(struct intel_atomic_state *state)
> > > pipe = INVALID_PIPE;
> > > }
> > >
> > > - if (intel_cdclk_can_squash(dev_priv,
> > > - &old_cdclk_state->actual,
> > > - &new_cdclk_state->actual)) {
> > > + if (intel_cdclk_can_crawl_and_squash(dev_priv,
> > > + &old_cdclk_state->actual,
> > > + &new_cdclk_state->actual)) {
> > > + drm_dbg_kms(&dev_priv->drm,
> > > + "Can change cdclk via crawler and squasher\n");
> > > + } else if (intel_cdclk_can_squash(dev_priv,
> > > + &old_cdclk_state->actual,
> > > + &new_cdclk_state->actual)) {
> >
> > In the bxt_set_cdclk(), we perform crawl_and_squash only if neither
> > crawl and squash alone can't accomplish cdclk change. So move the
> > intel_cdclk_can_crawl_and_squash() check to after the checks for crawl
> > and squash individually.
> > This would just make sure the logs reflect how actually the cdclk is
> > changed.
>
> The current order seems fine to me. intel_cdclk_can_crawl_and_squash()
> shouldn't say yes unless both crawl and squash are needed.
Agreed here.
Anusha
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bala
> >
> > > drm_dbg_kms(&dev_priv->drm,
> > > "Can change cdclk via squasher\n");
> > > } else if (intel_cdclk_can_crawl(dev_priv,
> > > --
> > > 2.25.1
> > >
>
> --
> Ville Syrjälä
> Intel
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list