On Mon, 21 Sep 2015, Patrik Jakobsson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:10:07PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 01:55:22PM +0200, Patrik Jakobsson wrote:
>> > We need to be able to control if DC6 is allowed or not. Much like
>> > requesting power to a specific piece of the hardware we need to be able
>> > to request that we don't enter DC6 during certain hw access.
>> >
>> > To solve this without introducing too much infrastructure I'm hooking
>> > into the power well / power domain framework. DC6 prevention is modeled
>> > much like an enabled power well. Thus I'm using the terminology on/off
>> > for DC states instead of enable/disable.
>> >
>> > The problem that started this work is the need for DC6 to be disabled
>> > when accessing DP_AUX_A during CRTC on/off. That is also fixed in this
>> > patch.
>> >
>> > This is posted as an RFC since DMC and DC state handling is being
>> > reworked and will possibly affect the outcome of this patch. The patch
>> > has known warnings.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Patrik Jakobsson <[email protected]>
>> > ---
>> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c | 9 +++++
>> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h | 2 +
>> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.c | 69
>> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>> > 3 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c
>> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c
>> > index 4823184..c2c1ad2 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c
>> > @@ -2288,6 +2288,8 @@ static void intel_ddi_pre_enable(struct
>> > intel_encoder *intel_encoder)
>> > if (type == INTEL_OUTPUT_DISPLAYPORT || type == INTEL_OUTPUT_EDP) {
>> > struct intel_dp *intel_dp = enc_to_intel_dp(encoder);
>> >
>> > + intel_display_power_get(dev_priv, POWER_DOMAIN_AUX_A);
>> > +
>>
>> These I think shouldn't be necessary with my
>> intel_display_port_aux_power_domain() stuff since intel_dp_aux_ch() will
>> itself grab the appropriate power domain.
Are you referring to stuff that is merged? Am I missing something?
>>
>> That's of course assuming that AUX is the only reason why we need to
>> keep DC6 disabled here.
>>
>
> The upside with having get/put around bigger aux transfers is that we
> don't get tons of enable/disable lines in the log. My vote is that we
> keep this but also have your fine-grained get/puts.
If it works without (and everything Ville is referring to above is
merged), I'd split these to a separate patch, and we can judge the
improvement on its own.
BR,
Jani.
>
> We also have an extra enable disable print in skl_disable_dc6() /
> skl_enable_dc6() which I think should be removed unless various DC on/off
> hacks
> are required outside of the power wells framework.
>
>> > intel_dp_set_link_params(intel_dp, crtc->config);
>> >
>> > intel_ddi_init_dp_buf_reg(intel_encoder);
>> > @@ -2297,6 +2299,8 @@ static void intel_ddi_pre_enable(struct
>> > intel_encoder *intel_encoder)
>> > intel_dp_complete_link_train(intel_dp);
>> > if (port != PORT_A || INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen >= 9)
>> > intel_dp_stop_link_train(intel_dp);
>> > +
>> > + intel_display_power_put(dev_priv, POWER_DOMAIN_AUX_A);
>> > } else if (type == INTEL_OUTPUT_HDMI) {
>> > struct intel_hdmi *intel_hdmi = enc_to_intel_hdmi(encoder);
>> >
>> > @@ -2339,9 +2343,14 @@ static void intel_ddi_post_disable(struct
>> > intel_encoder *intel_encoder)
>> >
>> > if (type == INTEL_OUTPUT_DISPLAYPORT || type == INTEL_OUTPUT_EDP) {
>> > struct intel_dp *intel_dp = enc_to_intel_dp(encoder);
>> > +
>> > + intel_display_power_get(dev_priv, POWER_DOMAIN_AUX_A);
>> > +
>> > intel_dp_sink_dpms(intel_dp, DRM_MODE_DPMS_OFF);
>> > intel_edp_panel_vdd_on(intel_dp);
>> > intel_edp_panel_off(intel_dp);
>> > +
>> > + intel_display_power_put(dev_priv, POWER_DOMAIN_AUX_A);
>> > }
>> >
>> > if (IS_SKYLAKE(dev))
>> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
>> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
>> > index 46484e4..82489ad 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
>> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
>> > @@ -1367,6 +1367,8 @@ void chv_phy_powergate_lanes(struct intel_encoder
>> > *encoder,
>> > bool override, unsigned int mask);
>> > bool chv_phy_powergate_ch(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, enum
>> > dpio_phy phy,
>> > enum dpio_channel ch, bool override);
>> > +void skl_enable_dc6(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
>> > +void skl_disable_dc6(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
>> >
>> >
>> > /* intel_pm.c */
>> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.c
>> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.c
>> > index 3f682a1..e30c9a6 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.c
>> > @@ -335,6 +335,10 @@ static void hsw_set_power_well(struct
>> > drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>> > SKL_DISPLAY_POWERWELL_1_POWER_DOMAINS | \
>> > BIT(POWER_DOMAIN_PLLS) | \
>> > BIT(POWER_DOMAIN_INIT))
>> > +#define SKL_DISPLAY_DC6_OFF_POWER_DOMAINS ( \
>> > + SKL_DISPLAY_POWERWELL_2_POWER_DOMAINS | \
>> > + BIT(POWER_DOMAIN_AUX_A))
>> > +
>> > #define SKL_DISPLAY_ALWAYS_ON_POWER_DOMAINS ( \
>> > (POWER_DOMAIN_MASK & ~(SKL_DISPLAY_POWERWELL_1_POWER_DOMAINS | \
>> > SKL_DISPLAY_POWERWELL_2_POWER_DOMAINS | \
>> > @@ -550,7 +554,7 @@ static void assert_can_disable_dc6(struct
>> > drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>> > "DC6 already programmed to be disabled.\n");
>> > }
>> >
>> > -static void skl_enable_dc6(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>> > +void skl_enable_dc6(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>> > {
>> > uint32_t val;
>> >
>> > @@ -567,7 +571,7 @@ static void skl_enable_dc6(struct drm_i915_private
>> > *dev_priv)
>> > POSTING_READ(DC_STATE_EN);
>> > }
>> >
>> > -static void skl_disable_dc6(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>> > +void skl_disable_dc6(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>> > {
>> > uint32_t val;
>> >
>> > @@ -628,10 +632,8 @@ static void skl_set_power_well(struct
>> > drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>> > !I915_READ(HSW_PWR_WELL_BIOS),
>> > "Invalid for power well status to be enabled,
>> > unless done by the BIOS, \
>> > when request is to disable!\n");
>> > - if ((GEN9_ENABLE_DC5(dev) || SKL_ENABLE_DC6(dev)) &&
>> > - power_well->data == SKL_DISP_PW_2) {
>> > + if (power_well->data == SKL_DISP_PW_2) {
>> > if (SKL_ENABLE_DC6(dev)) {
>> > - skl_disable_dc6(dev_priv);
>>
>> Hmm. So the ordering needs to be
>> disable dc6 -> enable pw2
>
> I don't know why DC6 is required for PW2 and at this point I don't see why the
> ordering should matter. Could you please explain?
>
>> > /*
>> > * DDI buffer programming unnecessary
>> > during driver-load/resume
>> > * as it's already done during modeset
>> > initialization then.
>> > @@ -639,10 +641,9 @@ static void skl_set_power_well(struct
>> > drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>> > */
>> > if
>> > (!dev_priv->power_domains.initializing)
>> > intel_prepare_ddi(dev);
>> > - } else {
>> > - gen9_disable_dc5(dev_priv);
>> > }
>> > }
>> > +
>> > I915_WRITE(HSW_PWR_WELL_DRIVER, tmp | req_mask);
>> > }
>> >
>> > @@ -660,8 +661,7 @@ static void skl_set_power_well(struct drm_i915_private
>> > *dev_priv,
>> > POSTING_READ(HSW_PWR_WELL_DRIVER);
>> > DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Disabling %s\n", power_well->name);
>> >
>> > - if ((GEN9_ENABLE_DC5(dev) || SKL_ENABLE_DC6(dev)) &&
>> > - power_well->data == SKL_DISP_PW_2) {
>> > + if (power_well->data == SKL_DISP_PW_2) {
>> > enum csr_state state;
>> > /* TODO: wait for a completion event or
>> > * similar here instead of busy
>> > @@ -669,14 +669,10 @@ static void skl_set_power_well(struct
>> > drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>> > */
>> > wait_for((state =
>> > intel_csr_load_status_get(dev_priv)) !=
>> > FW_UNINITIALIZED, 1000);
>> > - if (state != FW_LOADED)
>> > + if (state != FW_LOADED) {
>> > DRM_ERROR("CSR firmware not ready
>> > (%d)\n",
>> > - state);
>> > - else
>> > - if (SKL_ENABLE_DC6(dev))
>> > - skl_enable_dc6(dev_priv);
>> > - else
>> > - gen9_enable_dc5(dev_priv);
>> > + state);
>> > + }
>>
>> and here we need
>> disable pw2 -> enable dc6
>>
>> That's symmetric which is great for using power wells here since we walk
>> the power wells array forward when enabling, and backwards when
>> disabling.
>>
>> I'm thinking that we could also move the dc5 stuff into a power well.
>> Would reduce the clutter in skl_set_power_well() at least. I'm not sure
>> what the requirements wrt. dc5 are. If they are the same as for dc6,
>> then a single dc power well would do, otherwise we would need two, each
>> with its own domains.
>
> From what I've heard we don't need to care about DC5 atm. But I also think
> that
> a power well for DC5 is the way to go. Need to check with Damien what the
> requirements for DC5 are.
>
>> > }
>> > }
>> > }
>> > @@ -752,6 +748,34 @@ static void skl_power_well_disable(struct
>> > drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>> > skl_set_power_well(dev_priv, power_well, false);
>> > }
>> >
>> > +static bool skl_dc6_state_enabled(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>> > + struct i915_power_well *power_well)
>> > +{
>> > + /* Return true if disabling of DC6 is enabled */
>> > + return !(I915_READ(DC_STATE_EN) & DC_STATE_EN_UPTO_DC6);
>> > +}
>> > +
>> > +static void skl_dc6_state_on(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>> > + struct i915_power_well *power_well)
>> > +{
>> > + skl_enable_dc6(dev_priv);
>> > +}
>> > +
>> > +static void skl_dc6_state_off(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>> > + struct i915_power_well *power_well)
>> > +{
>> > + skl_disable_dc6(dev_priv);
>> > +}
>> > +
>> > +static void skl_dc6_sync_hw(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>> > + struct i915_power_well *power_well)
>> > +{
>> > + if (power_well->count > 0)
>> > + skl_disable_dc6(dev_priv);
>> > + else
>> > + skl_enable_dc6(dev_priv);
>> > +}
>>
>> Nit: Looks like we usuall have these in the following order
>> sync_hw
>> enable
>> disable
>>
>> 'enabled' is a bit all over the place usually. I guess before or after the
>> rest is fine.
>
> Yes, better keep the current order.
>
>> I'm not really sure how I would name these. The current naming doesn't
>> really tell me they're power well ops. Maybe
>> skl_dc6_off_power_well_{enable,disable,sync_hw,enabled}() ?
>
> I agree, better make it clear that they are pw ops.
>
>> > +
>> > static void i9xx_always_on_power_well_noop(struct drm_i915_private
>> > *dev_priv,
>> > struct i915_power_well *power_well)
>> > {
>> > @@ -1546,6 +1570,14 @@ static const struct i915_power_well_ops
>> > skl_power_well_ops = {
>> > .is_enabled = skl_power_well_enabled,
>> > };
>> >
>> > +static const struct i915_power_well_ops skl_dc_state_ops = {
>>
>> _dc6_, and naming to match how the function are finally named of
>> course.
>>
>> > + .sync_hw = skl_dc6_sync_hw,
>> > + /* To enable power we turn the DC state off */
>> > + .enable = skl_dc6_state_off,
>> > + .disable = skl_dc6_state_on,
>> > + .is_enabled = skl_dc6_state_enabled,
>> > +};
>> > +
>> > static struct i915_power_well hsw_power_wells[] = {
>> > {
>> > .name = "always-on",
>> > @@ -1745,6 +1777,11 @@ static struct i915_power_well skl_power_wells[] = {
>> > .ops = &skl_power_well_ops,
>> > .data = SKL_DISP_PW_DDI_D,
>> > },
>> > + {
>> > + .name = "DC6 state off",
>>
>> Just "DC6 off" perhaps?
>>
>> I wasn't able to think of a nice way to name this so that it would make
>> more sense in the logs. With this we would get
>> 'enabling DC6 off' and 'disabling DC6 off' which is a bit confusing.
>> Maybe we should at least put quotes around the power well name in the
>> debug message to make it a bit less funky? Probably not worth it to
>> add support for sully customized enable/disable log message.
>
> Agreed
>
>> > + .domains = SKL_DISPLAY_DC6_OFF_POWER_DOMAINS,
>> > + .ops = &skl_power_well_ops,
>>
>> Surely you want to use the new ops you created? :)
>
> Oops :)
>
>> And here we need to be careful where in the list we insert the power
>> well. Based on what we saw earlier, the right place should be just
>> before PW2. That way DC6 gets disabled before PW2 is enabled, and
>> PW2 gets disabled before DC6 gets enabled.
>
> Yes, regardless of the ordering requirements it makes sense to move it up.
>
> Thanks for having a look
> -Patrik
>
>> > + },
>> > };
>> >
>> > static struct i915_power_well bxt_power_wells[] = {
>> > --
>> > 2.1.4
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Intel-gfx mailing list
>> > [email protected]
>> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
>>
>> --
>> Ville Syrjälä
>> Intel OTC
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
