On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 10:35:56AM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 05:57:18PM +0200, Stanislav Lisovskiy wrote:
> > Problem is that on some platforms, we do get QGV point mask in wrong
> > state on boot. However driver assumes it is set to 0
> > (i.e all points allowed), however in reality we might get them all 
> > restricted,
> > causing issues.
> > Lets disable SAGV initially to force proper QGV point state.
> > If more QGV points are available, driver will recalculate and update
> > those then after next commit.
> > 
> > v2: - Added trace to see which QGV/PSF GV point is used when SAGV is
> >       disabled.
> > v3: - Move force disable function to intel_bw_init in order to initialize
> >       bw state as well, so that hw/sw are immediately in sync after init.
> > v4: - Don't try sending PCode request, seems like it is not possible at
> >       intel_bw_init, however assigning bw->state to be restricted as if
> >       SAGV is off, still forces driveer to send PCode request anyway on
> >       next modeset, so the solution still works.
> >       However we still need to address the case, when no display is 
> > connected,
> >       which anyway requires much more changes.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Lisovskiy <stanislav.lisovs...@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_bw.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_bw.h |  2 ++
> >  2 files changed, 26 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_bw.c 
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_bw.c
> > index 7baa1c13eccd..36a6304207ba 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_bw.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_bw.c
> > @@ -852,6 +852,27 @@ static unsigned int icl_max_bw_qgv_point(struct 
> > drm_i915_private *i915,
> >     return max_bw_point;
> >  }
> >  
> > +void icl_force_disable_sagv(struct drm_i915_private *i915, struct 
> > intel_bw_state *bw_state)
> > +{
> > +   unsigned int max_bw_qgv_point = icl_max_bw_qgv_point(i915, 0);
> > +   unsigned int qgv_points;
> > +   unsigned int psf_points;
> > +
> > +   qgv_points = BIT(max_bw_qgv_point);
> > +
> > +   /*
> > +    * We don't restrict PSF GV points, when disabling SAGV
> > +    */
> > +   psf_points = 0;
> 
> Using 0 looks very wrong here. Since we have no idea how much
> bandwidth the display is consuming at this time we should
> restrict this to the max psf gv point as well.

Didn't we just agree that we are not restricting to max PSF GV
point, in the last revision?..

"
> Yep, but I really suspect we should. BSpec states that we should restrict all 
> the GV points
> except highest one, also that some PSF GV points aren't same or usable, 
> depending on BW reqs.
> So I would restrict that as well, in case if SAGV is off, just to be on safe 
> side.

Pretty sure it's explicitly noted that PSF doesn't cause issues with
latency and hence doesn't need this.

In any case, a change like this has no business being in a patch
that's just supposed to refactor code.
"



> 
> > +
> > +   bw_state->qgv_points_mask = ~(ICL_PCODE_REQ_QGV_PT(qgv_points) |
> > +                                 ADLS_PCODE_REQ_PSF_PT(psf_points)) &
> > +                                 icl_qgv_points_mask(i915);
> > +
> > +   drm_dbg_kms(&i915->drm, "Forcing SAGV disable: leaving QGV point %d\n",
> > +                           max_bw_qgv_point);
> 
> You didn't actually poke the hardware to disable anything.

I know, problem is that PCode request doesn't work at this stage.
Need to figure out why, but apparently it seems a bit too early.
PCode just rejects that request.

However that still works, because if more QGV points are available, driver
will send a new request anyway on next modeset.

Stan

> 
> > +}
> > +
> >  static int mtl_find_qgv_points(struct drm_i915_private *i915,
> >                            unsigned int data_rate,
> >                            unsigned int num_active_planes,
> > @@ -1351,5 +1372,8 @@ int intel_bw_init(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> >     intel_atomic_global_obj_init(dev_priv, &dev_priv->display.bw.obj,
> >                                  &state->base, &intel_bw_funcs);
> >  
> > +   if (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) < 14)
> 
> Should be some kind of range check to avoid putting garbage in there on
> old platforms that don't support QGV.
> 
> > +           icl_force_disable_sagv(dev_priv, state);
> > +
> >     return 0;
> >  }
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_bw.h 
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_bw.h
> > index 59cb4fc5db76..243192fd4cae 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_bw.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_bw.h
> > @@ -74,5 +74,7 @@ int intel_bw_calc_min_cdclk(struct intel_atomic_state 
> > *state,
> >                         bool *need_cdclk_calc);
> >  int intel_bw_min_cdclk(struct drm_i915_private *i915,
> >                    const struct intel_bw_state *bw_state);
> > +void icl_force_disable_sagv(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > +                       struct intel_bw_state *bw_state);
> 
> Why?
> 
> >  
> >  #endif /* __INTEL_BW_H__ */
> > -- 
> > 2.37.3
> 
> -- 
> Ville Syrjälä
> Intel

Reply via email to