On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 01:08:23PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 10:59:57AM -0700, Manasi Navare wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 05:38:00PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> > > Op 22-09-2019 om 19:08 schreef Manasi Navare:
> > > > After the state is committed, we readout the HW registers and compare
> > > > the HW state with the SW state that we just committed.
> > > > For Transcdoer port sync, we add master_transcoder and the
> > > > salves bitmask to the crtc_state, hence we need to read those during
> > > > the HW state readout to avoid pipe state mismatch.
> > > >
> > > > v4:
> > > > * Get power domains in master loop for get_config (Ville)
> > > > v3:
> > > > * Add TRANSCODER_D (Maarten)
> > > > * v3 Reviewed-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankho...@linux.intel.com>
> > > > v2:
> > > > * Add Transcoder_D and MISSING_CASE (Maarten)
> > > >
> > > > Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com>
> > > > Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankho...@linux.intel.com>
> > > > Cc: Matt Roper <matthew.d.ro...@intel.com>
> > > > Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nik...@intel.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Manasi Navare <manasi.d.nav...@intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c | 69 ++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > 1 file changed, 69 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> > > > index 1ae5eafe2892..711987eb4e9e 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> > > > @@ -10470,6 +10470,72 @@ static void haswell_get_ddi_port_state(struct
> > > > intel_crtc *crtc,
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > +static enum transcoder transcoder_master(struct drm_i915_private
> > > > *dev_priv,
> > > > + enum transcoder cpu_transcoder)
> > > > +{
> > > > + u32 trans_port_sync, master_select;
> > > > +
> > > > + trans_port_sync =
> > > > I915_READ(TRANS_DDI_FUNC_CTL2(cpu_transcoder));
> > > > +
> > > > + if ((trans_port_sync & PORT_SYNC_MODE_ENABLE) == 0)
> > > > + return INVALID_TRANSCODER;
> > > > +
> > > > + master_select = trans_port_sync &
> > > > + PORT_SYNC_MODE_MASTER_SELECT_MASK;
> > > > + switch (master_select) {
> > > > + case 1:
> > > > + return TRANSCODER_A;
> > > > + case 2:
> > > > + return TRANSCODER_B;
> > > > + case 3:
> > > > + return TRANSCODER_C;
> > > > + case 4:
> > > > + return TRANSCODER_D;
> > > > + default:
> > > > + MISSING_CASE(master_select);
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + return INVALID_TRANSCODER;
> > > Could move this return up to default. :)
> >
> > Yes will do this
> >
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static void icelake_get_trans_port_sync_config(struct intel_crtc *crtc,
> > > > + struct intel_crtc_state
> > > > *pipe_config)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct drm_device *dev = crtc->base.dev;
> > > > + struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dev);
> > > > + u32 transcoders;
> > > > + enum transcoder cpu_transcoder;
> > > > +
> > > > + pipe_config->master_transcoder = transcoder_master(dev_priv,
> > > > +
> > > > pipe_config->cpu_transcoder);
> > > > + if (pipe_config->master_transcoder != INVALID_TRANSCODER) {
> > > > + pipe_config->sync_mode_slaves_mask = 0;
> > > > + return;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > >
> > > It could still be useful to go through the loop below anyway, in case we
> > > messed up. We are reading out from hw after all.
> > >
> >
> > The loop below will be called always in case of the HW state readout for
> > master, in case of the slave it will execute
> > the firs part, get the master transcoder and return, why do we need to call
> > the loop below for slave? Why cant we just return here
> > as in the code?
>
> I think Maarten's point was to catch cases where the same transcoder is
> accidentally configure as both slave and master.
>
But shouldnt we add a warn on for such a case, if we let it go through both the
first part and the loop below
then it will populate the master_trans and slave_bitmask both for the same crtc
which would be wrong
How can we flag such a case?
Manasi
> >
> > > And then also add this as a PIPE_CONF_CHECK_X check to
> > > pipe_config_compare().
> > >
> >
> > This is already added in pipe_config_compare() in the patch that adds these
> > two master_trans and slave_bitmask to the crtc state
> >
> > Manasi
> >
> > > With that fixed and CI happy,
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankho...@linux.intel.com>
> > >
> > > > + transcoders = BIT(TRANSCODER_A) |
> > > > + BIT(TRANSCODER_B) |
> > > > + BIT(TRANSCODER_C) |
> > > > + BIT(TRANSCODER_D);
> > > > + for_each_cpu_transcoder_masked(dev_priv, cpu_transcoder,
> > > > transcoders) {
> > > > + enum intel_display_power_domain power_domain;
> > > > + intel_wakeref_t trans_wakeref;
> > > > +
> > > > + power_domain = POWER_DOMAIN_TRANSCODER(cpu_transcoder);
> > > > + trans_wakeref =
> > > > intel_display_power_get_if_enabled(dev_priv,
> > > > +
> > > > power_domain);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!trans_wakeref)
> > > > + continue;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (transcoder_master(dev_priv, cpu_transcoder) ==
> > > > + pipe_config->cpu_transcoder)
> > > > + pipe_config->sync_mode_slaves_mask |=
> > > > BIT(cpu_transcoder);
> > > > +
> > > > + intel_display_power_put(dev_priv, power_domain,
> > > > trans_wakeref);
> > > > + }
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > static bool haswell_get_pipe_config(struct intel_crtc *crtc,
> > > > struct intel_crtc_state
> > > > *pipe_config)
> > > > {
> > > > @@ -10566,6 +10632,9 @@ static bool haswell_get_pipe_config(struct
> > > > intel_crtc *crtc,
> > > > pipe_config->pixel_multiplier = 1;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > + if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 11)
> > > > + icelake_get_trans_port_sync_config(crtc, pipe_config);
> > > > +
> > > > out:
> > > > for_each_power_domain(power_domain, power_domain_mask)
> > > > intel_display_power_put(dev_priv,
> > >
> > >
>
> --
> Ville Syrjälä
> Intel
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
