[PATCH 2/3] drm/i915/psr: Improve fast and IO wake lines calculation

[Ville Syrjälä]

On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 09:05:43PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 09:53:21AM +0200, Jouni Högander wrote:
> > Current fast and IO wake lines calculation is assuming fast wake sync
> > length is 18 pulses. Let's improve this by checking the actual length.
> > 
> > Also 10 us IO buffer wake time is currently assumed. This is not the case
> > with LunarLake and beyond. Fix this by adding getter for IO wake time and
> > return values there according to Bspec.
> > 
> > Bspec: 65450
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jouni Högander <jouni.hogander at intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_psr.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++-----
> >  1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_psr.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_psr.c
> > index 72cadad09db5..4a1e07411716 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_psr.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_psr.c
> > @@ -1150,6 +1150,28 @@ static bool _lnl_compute_alpm_params(struct intel_dp *intel_dp,
> >  	return true;
> >  }
> >  
> > +/*
> > + * From Bspec:
> > + *
> > + * For Xe2 and beyond
> > + * RBR 15us, HBR1 11us, higher rates 10us
> > + *
> > + * For pre-Xe2
> > + * 10 us
> > + */
> > +static int get_io_wake_time(struct intel_dp *intel_dp,
> 
> No point in passing that. You can dig out the i915 from the crtc state.
> 
> > +			struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state)
> 
> const
> 
> > +{
> > +	struct drm_i915_private *i915 = dp_to_i915(intel_dp);
> > +
> > +	if (DISPLAY_VER(i915) < 20 || crtc_state->port_clock > 270000)
> > +		return 10;
> > +	else if (crtc_state->port_clock > 162000)
> > +		return 11;
> > +	else
> > +		return 15;
> 
> The new rate dependent stuff should be a separate patch.
> 
> And looks like the 10 usec will give us 44 usec io wake time, so
> that should probably be a separate patch as well, to avoid
> any functional changes when we introduce the formula.
> 
> > +}
> > +
> >  static bool _compute_alpm_params(struct intel_dp *intel_dp,
> >  				 struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state)
> >  {
> > @@ -1157,13 +1179,17 @@ static bool _compute_alpm_params(struct intel_dp *intel_dp,
> >  	int io_wake_lines, io_wake_time, fast_wake_lines, fast_wake_time;
> >  	u8 max_wake_lines;
> >  
> > -	if (DISPLAY_VER(i915) >= 12) {
> > -		io_wake_time = 42;
> > -		/*
> > -		 * According to Bspec it's 42us, but based on testing
> > -		 * it is not enough -> use 45 us.
> > -		 */
> > -		fast_wake_time = 45;
> > +	if (intel_dp->get_aux_fw_sync_len) {
> > +		int io_wake_time = get_io_wake_time(intel_dp, crtc_state);
> 
> Looks like this will shadow the variable you're trying to change.
> Does the compiler not complain about this?
> 
> > +		int tfw_exit_latency = 20; /* eDP spec */
> > +		int phy_wake = 4;	   /* eDP spec */
> > +		int preamble = 8;	   /* eDP spec */
> > +		int precharge = intel_dp->get_aux_fw_sync_len() - preamble;
> > +
> > +		io_wake_time = max(precharge, io_wake_time) + preamble +
> > +			phy_wake + tfw_exit_latency;
> > +		fast_wake_time = precharge + preamble + phy_wake +
> > +			tfw_exit_latency;
> >  
> >  		/* TODO: Check how we can use ALPM_CTL fast wake extended field */
> >  		max_wake_lines = 12;
> 
> I would also convert the older platforms to use the formula.
> We do need to reverse calculate the io buffer on latency since
> AFAICS it's not directly specified in bspec. But I think
> that's better than not converting it since with the formula we
> can't totally screw things up when eg. changing the precharge
> length.

Hmm. The older platforms are apparently using fast_wake=32
which implies zero precharge pulses. That definitely does
not match what we program into the AUX control register...

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel