On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 11:12:30AM +0530, Nautiyal, Ankit K wrote:
>
> On 9/9/2024 7:10 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 09, 2024 at 11:10:16AM +0530, Nautiyal, Ankit K wrote:
> >> On 9/6/2024 8:24 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Sep 06, 2024 at 05:46:11PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, Sep 06, 2024 at 06:27:54PM +0530, Ankit Nautiyal wrote:
> >>>>> At the moment, the debugfs for joiner allows only to force
> >>>>> enable/disable
> >>>>> pipe joiner for 2 pipes. Modify it to force join 'n' number of pipes,
> >>>>> where n is a valid pipe joiner configuration.
> >>>>> This will help in case of ultra joiner where 4 pipes are joined.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> v2:
> >>>>> -Fix commit message to state that only valid joiner config can be
> >>>>> forced. (Suraj)
> >>>>> -Rename the identifiers to have INTEL_BIG/NONE_JOINER_PIPES. (Suraj)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Ankit Nautiyal <[email protected]>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> .../drm/i915/display/intel_display_debugfs.c | 71
> >>>>> ++++++++++++++++++-
> >>>>> .../drm/i915/display/intel_display_types.h | 8 ++-
> >>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c | 2 +-
> >>>>> 3 files changed, 77 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_debugfs.c
> >>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_debugfs.c
> >>>>> index 830b9eb60976..0ef573afd8a1 100644
> >>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_debugfs.c
> >>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_debugfs.c
> >>>>> @@ -1504,6 +1504,73 @@ static int intel_crtc_pipe_show(struct seq_file
> >>>>> *m, void *unused)
> >>>>> }
> >>>>> DEFINE_SHOW_ATTRIBUTE(intel_crtc_pipe);
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +static int i915_joiner_show(struct seq_file *m, void *data)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> + struct intel_connector *connector = m->private;
> >>>>> + struct drm_i915_private *i915 = to_i915(connector->base.dev);
> >>>>> + int ret;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + ret =
> >>>>> drm_modeset_lock_single_interruptible(&i915->drm.mode_config.connection_mutex);
> >>>>> + if (ret)
> >>>>> + return ret;
> >>>> What does that lock do for us?
> >>>>
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + seq_printf(m, "Force_joined_pipes: %d\n",
> >>>>> connector->force_joined_pipes);
> >>>> This should just be thae bare number. Adding other junk in there just
> >>>> complicates matters if anyone has to parse this.
> >>>>
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + drm_modeset_unlock(&i915->drm.mode_config.connection_mutex);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + return ret;
> >>>>> +}
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +static ssize_t i915_joiner_write(struct file *file,
> >>>>> + const char __user *ubuf,
> >>>>> + size_t len, loff_t *offp)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> + struct seq_file *m = file->private_data;
> >>>>> + struct intel_connector *connector = m->private;
> >>>>> + struct drm_i915_private *i915 = to_i915(connector->base.dev);
> >>>>> + int force_join_pipes = 0;
> >>>>> + int ret;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + if (len == 0)
> >>>>> + return 0;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + drm_dbg(&i915->drm,
> >>>>> + "Copied %zu bytes from user to force joiner\n", len);
> >>>> Leftover debug junk.
> >>>>
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + ret = kstrtoint_from_user(ubuf, len, 0, &force_join_pipes);
> >>>>> + if (ret < 0)
> >>>>> + return ret;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + drm_dbg(&i915->drm, "Got %d for force joining pipes\n",
> >>>>> force_join_pipes);
> >>>> More.
> >>>>
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + if (force_join_pipes < INTEL_NONE_JOINER_PIPES ||
> >>>>> + force_join_pipes >= INTEL_INVALID_JOINER_PIPES) {
> >>>>> + drm_dbg(&i915->drm, "Ignoring Invalid num of pipes %d
> >>>>> for force joining\n",
> >>>>> + force_join_pipes);
> >>>>> + connector->force_joined_pipes = INTEL_NONE_JOINER_PIPES;
> >>>>> + } else {
> >>>>> + connector->force_joined_pipes = force_join_pipes;
> >>>>> + }
> >>>> I think just something like
> >>>> switch (num_pipes) {
> >>>> case 0: /* or should 1 be the default? */
> >>> I suppose both 0 and 1 should be accepted. 0==not forced, 1==forced to
> >>> exactly one pipe (ie. no joiner despite what the automagic logic
> >>> is saying).
> >> I understand 0 as not forced. I didnt get the meaning of forcing to one
> >> pipe.
> >>
> >> Does this mean, disable joiner? (Perhaps do not use joiner even for the
> >> cases where driver thinks joiner is required)
> >>
> >> How should we handle the case in driver, where it is 1?
> > Whatever code that determines how many pipes will should:
> > 1) if the override is non-zero just use it
> > 2) otherwise determine the number by using whatever
> > logic is appropriate
>
>
> Alright, If I get correctly the driver logic will be something like:
>
> int intel_dp_compute_joiner_pipes(struct intel_dp *intel_dp,
> struct intel_connector *connector,
> int hdisplay, int clock)
> {
> int num_joined_pipes = 0;
This variable looks redundant. You can just directly return
the correct number from the switch statement.
>
> switch (connector->force_joined_pipes) {
> case 1:
> num_joined_pipes = connector->force_joined_pipes;
This would now return 1, which is probably a value we never
want to return from here. Either that or we want to never
return 0 (which this code would do in some of the other
cases). Not sure which way is better tbh.
> break;
> case 2:
> if (intel_dp_has_joiner(intel_dp))
> num_joined_pipes = connector->force_joined_pipes;
Hmm. We might want to make the debugfs knob already reject the
!has_joiner case so that the user won't even be allowed to
pick a completely unsupported value.
> break;
> default:
> MISSING_CASE(connector->force_joined_pipes);
> fallthrough;
> case 0:
> if (intel_dp_has_joiner(intel_dp) &&
> intel_dp_needs_bigjoiner(intel_dp, connector,
> hdisplay, clock))
> num_joined_pipes = 2;
> }
>
> return num_joined_pipes;
> }
>
> With a value of 1 we are kind of forcing to not use joiner.
>
> Currently for testing sent this to trybot:
> https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/613627/?series=138444&rev=1
>
> Regards,
>
> Ankit
>
> >
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Ankit
> >>
> >>>> case 2:
> >>>> case 4:
> >>>> break;
> >>>> default:
> >>>> bad;
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> should do for validation.
> >>>>
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
