Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3] drm/i915/psr: Update PSR2 resolution check for Cannonlake
On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 11:24:15PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 08:45:44PM +, Pandiyan, Dhinakaran wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 2018-03-06 at 22:38 +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 12:33:55PM -0800, Dhinakaran Pandiyan wrote:
> > > > In fact, apply the Cannonlake resolution check for all >= Gen-10
> > > > platforms
> > > > to be safe.
> > > >
> > > > v3: Update GLK too. (Ville)
> > > > Longer variable names.
> > > > if-else in place of ternary operator.
> > > > v2: Use local variables for resolution limits and print them (Ville)
> > > >
> > > > Cc: Ville Syrjälä
> > > > Cc: Rodrigo Vivi
> > > > Cc: Elio Martinez Monroy
> > > > Signed-off-by: Dhinakaran Pandiyan
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c | 21 +++--
> > > > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > > > index 05770790a4e9..23175c5c4a50 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > > > @@ -451,8 +451,9 @@ static bool intel_psr2_config_valid(struct intel_dp
> > > > *intel_dp,
> > > > {
> > > > struct intel_digital_port *dig_port = dp_to_dig_port(intel_dp);
> > > > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv =
> > > > to_i915(dig_port->base.base.dev);
> > > > - const struct drm_display_mode *adjusted_mode =
> > > > - &crtc_state->base.adjusted_mode;
> > > > + int crtc_hdisplay =
> > > > crtc_state->base.adjusted_mode.crtc_hdisplay;
> > > > + int crtc_vdisplay =
> > > > crtc_state->base.adjusted_mode.crtc_vdisplay;
> > > ^
> > > The crtc_ prefix is pretty much redundant.
> >
> > display_mode has members named vdisplay and hdisplay and this avoids any
> > potential confusion.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > + int psr_max_h = 0, psr_max_v = 0;
> > >
> > > And this still reads as "max height" to my brain, but meh.
> >
> > And here I thought this version leaves no room for confusion :) I should
> > just ask someone else to write this patch.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > /*
> > > > * FIXME psr2_support is messed up. It's both computed
> > > > @@ -462,10 +463,18 @@ static bool intel_psr2_config_valid(struct
> > > > intel_dp *intel_dp,
> > > > if (!dev_priv->psr.psr2_support)
> > > > return false;
> > > >
> > > > - /* PSR2 is restricted to work with panel resolutions up to
> > > > 3640x2304 */
> > > > - if (adjusted_mode->crtc_hdisplay > 3640 ||
> > > > - adjusted_mode->crtc_vdisplay > 2304) {
> > > > - DRM_DEBUG_KMS("PSR2 not enabled, panel resolution too
> > > > big\n");
> > > > + if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 10 || IS_GEMINILAKE(dev_priv)) {
> > > > + psr_max_h = 4096;
> > > > + psr_max_v = 2304;
> > > > + } else if (IS_GEN9(dev_priv)) {
> > > > + psr_max_h = 3640;
> > > > + psr_max_v = 2304;
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > pre-SKL?
> >
> > No PSR2 on pre-skl
>
> OK. I'd drop the IS_GEN9 then. Would be less confusing for my brain at
> least.
>
> >
> > If we do somehow end up here, returning false and printing a debug
> > message will be useful.
>
> Seems a bit overly protective. The has_psr2 check is just above. IMO
> adding basically dead code "just in case" is not helpful in making the
> code easy to read.
>
> Since you say pre-skl is not a problem here:
> Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä
>
pushed, thanks
> >
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > + if (crtc_hdisplay > psr_max_h || crtc_vdisplay > psr_max_v) {
> > > > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("PSR2 not enabled, resolution %dx%d > max
> > > > supported %dx%d\n",
> > > > + crtc_hdisplay, crtc_vdisplay,
> > > > + psr_max_h, psr_max_v);
> > > > return false;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 2.14.1
> > >
>
> --
> Ville Syrjälä
> Intel OTC
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3] drm/i915/psr: Update PSR2 resolution check for Cannonlake
On Tue, 2018-03-06 at 23:24 +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 08:45:44PM +, Pandiyan, Dhinakaran wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 2018-03-06 at 22:38 +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 12:33:55PM -0800, Dhinakaran Pandiyan wrote:
> > > > In fact, apply the Cannonlake resolution check for all >= Gen-10
> > > > platforms
> > > > to be safe.
> > > >
> > > > v3: Update GLK too. (Ville)
> > > > Longer variable names.
> > > > if-else in place of ternary operator.
> > > > v2: Use local variables for resolution limits and print them (Ville)
> > > >
> > > > Cc: Ville Syrjälä
> > > > Cc: Rodrigo Vivi
> > > > Cc: Elio Martinez Monroy
> > > > Signed-off-by: Dhinakaran Pandiyan
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c | 21 +++--
> > > > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > > > index 05770790a4e9..23175c5c4a50 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > > > @@ -451,8 +451,9 @@ static bool intel_psr2_config_valid(struct intel_dp
> > > > *intel_dp,
> > > > {
> > > > struct intel_digital_port *dig_port = dp_to_dig_port(intel_dp);
> > > > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv =
> > > > to_i915(dig_port->base.base.dev);
> > > > - const struct drm_display_mode *adjusted_mode =
> > > > - &crtc_state->base.adjusted_mode;
> > > > + int crtc_hdisplay =
> > > > crtc_state->base.adjusted_mode.crtc_hdisplay;
> > > > + int crtc_vdisplay =
> > > > crtc_state->base.adjusted_mode.crtc_vdisplay;
> > > ^
> > > The crtc_ prefix is pretty much redundant.
> >
> > display_mode has members named vdisplay and hdisplay and this avoids any
> > potential confusion.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > + int psr_max_h = 0, psr_max_v = 0;
> > >
> > > And this still reads as "max height" to my brain, but meh.
> >
> > And here I thought this version leaves no room for confusion :) I should
> > just ask someone else to write this patch.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > /*
> > > > * FIXME psr2_support is messed up. It's both computed
> > > > @@ -462,10 +463,18 @@ static bool intel_psr2_config_valid(struct
> > > > intel_dp *intel_dp,
> > > > if (!dev_priv->psr.psr2_support)
> > > > return false;
> > > >
> > > > - /* PSR2 is restricted to work with panel resolutions up to
> > > > 3640x2304 */
> > > > - if (adjusted_mode->crtc_hdisplay > 3640 ||
> > > > - adjusted_mode->crtc_vdisplay > 2304) {
> > > > - DRM_DEBUG_KMS("PSR2 not enabled, panel resolution too
> > > > big\n");
> > > > + if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 10 || IS_GEMINILAKE(dev_priv)) {
> > > > + psr_max_h = 4096;
> > > > + psr_max_v = 2304;
> > > > + } else if (IS_GEN9(dev_priv)) {
> > > > + psr_max_h = 3640;
> > > > + psr_max_v = 2304;
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > pre-SKL?
> >
> > No PSR2 on pre-skl
>
> OK. I'd drop the IS_GEN9 then. Would be less confusing for my brain at
> least.
>
> >
> > If we do somehow end up here, returning false and printing a debug
> > message will be useful.
>
> Seems a bit overly protective. The has_psr2 check is just above. IMO
A recent patch that added this function had a version without the
has_psr2 check. So, I am just paranoid a similar patch might slip
through and the meaning of that flag is inconsistent too. But, I get the
idea of not adding redundant checks. Let's go with this for now and I'll
remove it when I get around to addressing the FIXME above.
> adding basically dead code "just in case" is not helpful in making the
> code easy to read.
>
> Since you say pre-skl is not a problem here:
> Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä
>
Thanks!
> >
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > + if (crtc_hdisplay > psr_max_h || crtc_vdisplay > psr_max_v) {
> > > > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("PSR2 not enabled, resolution %dx%d > max
> > > > supported %dx%d\n",
> > > > + crtc_hdisplay, crtc_vdisplay,
> > > > + psr_max_h, psr_max_v);
> > > > return false;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 2.14.1
> > >
>
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3] drm/i915/psr: Update PSR2 resolution check for Cannonlake
On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 08:45:44PM +, Pandiyan, Dhinakaran wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 2018-03-06 at 22:38 +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 12:33:55PM -0800, Dhinakaran Pandiyan wrote:
> > > In fact, apply the Cannonlake resolution check for all >= Gen-10 platforms
> > > to be safe.
> > >
> > > v3: Update GLK too. (Ville)
> > > Longer variable names.
> > > if-else in place of ternary operator.
> > > v2: Use local variables for resolution limits and print them (Ville)
> > >
> > > Cc: Ville Syrjälä
> > > Cc: Rodrigo Vivi
> > > Cc: Elio Martinez Monroy
> > > Signed-off-by: Dhinakaran Pandiyan
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c | 21 +++--
> > > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > > index 05770790a4e9..23175c5c4a50 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > > @@ -451,8 +451,9 @@ static bool intel_psr2_config_valid(struct intel_dp
> > > *intel_dp,
> > > {
> > > struct intel_digital_port *dig_port = dp_to_dig_port(intel_dp);
> > > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dig_port->base.base.dev);
> > > - const struct drm_display_mode *adjusted_mode =
> > > - &crtc_state->base.adjusted_mode;
> > > + int crtc_hdisplay = crtc_state->base.adjusted_mode.crtc_hdisplay;
> > > + int crtc_vdisplay = crtc_state->base.adjusted_mode.crtc_vdisplay;
> > ^
> > The crtc_ prefix is pretty much redundant.
>
> display_mode has members named vdisplay and hdisplay and this avoids any
> potential confusion.
>
>
> >
> > > + int psr_max_h = 0, psr_max_v = 0;
> >
> > And this still reads as "max height" to my brain, but meh.
>
> And here I thought this version leaves no room for confusion :) I should
> just ask someone else to write this patch.
>
> >
> > >
> > > /*
> > >* FIXME psr2_support is messed up. It's both computed
> > > @@ -462,10 +463,18 @@ static bool intel_psr2_config_valid(struct intel_dp
> > > *intel_dp,
> > > if (!dev_priv->psr.psr2_support)
> > > return false;
> > >
> > > - /* PSR2 is restricted to work with panel resolutions up to 3640x2304 */
> > > - if (adjusted_mode->crtc_hdisplay > 3640 ||
> > > - adjusted_mode->crtc_vdisplay > 2304) {
> > > - DRM_DEBUG_KMS("PSR2 not enabled, panel resolution too big\n");
> > > + if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 10 || IS_GEMINILAKE(dev_priv)) {
> > > + psr_max_h = 4096;
> > > + psr_max_v = 2304;
> > > + } else if (IS_GEN9(dev_priv)) {
> > > + psr_max_h = 3640;
> > > + psr_max_v = 2304;
> > > + }
> >
> > pre-SKL?
>
> No PSR2 on pre-skl
OK. I'd drop the IS_GEN9 then. Would be less confusing for my brain at
least.
>
> If we do somehow end up here, returning false and printing a debug
> message will be useful.
Seems a bit overly protective. The has_psr2 check is just above. IMO
adding basically dead code "just in case" is not helpful in making the
code easy to read.
Since you say pre-skl is not a problem here:
Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä
>
> >
> > > +
> > > + if (crtc_hdisplay > psr_max_h || crtc_vdisplay > psr_max_v) {
> > > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("PSR2 not enabled, resolution %dx%d > max
> > > supported %dx%d\n",
> > > + crtc_hdisplay, crtc_vdisplay,
> > > + psr_max_h, psr_max_v);
> > > return false;
> > > }
> > >
> > > --
> > > 2.14.1
> >
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3] drm/i915/psr: Update PSR2 resolution check for Cannonlake
On Tue, 2018-03-06 at 22:38 +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 12:33:55PM -0800, Dhinakaran Pandiyan wrote:
> > In fact, apply the Cannonlake resolution check for all >= Gen-10 platforms
> > to be safe.
> >
> > v3: Update GLK too. (Ville)
> > Longer variable names.
> > if-else in place of ternary operator.
> > v2: Use local variables for resolution limits and print them (Ville)
> >
> > Cc: Ville Syrjälä
> > Cc: Rodrigo Vivi
> > Cc: Elio Martinez Monroy
> > Signed-off-by: Dhinakaran Pandiyan
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c | 21 +++--
> > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > index 05770790a4e9..23175c5c4a50 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > @@ -451,8 +451,9 @@ static bool intel_psr2_config_valid(struct intel_dp
> > *intel_dp,
> > {
> > struct intel_digital_port *dig_port = dp_to_dig_port(intel_dp);
> > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dig_port->base.base.dev);
> > - const struct drm_display_mode *adjusted_mode =
> > - &crtc_state->base.adjusted_mode;
> > + int crtc_hdisplay = crtc_state->base.adjusted_mode.crtc_hdisplay;
> > + int crtc_vdisplay = crtc_state->base.adjusted_mode.crtc_vdisplay;
> ^
> The crtc_ prefix is pretty much redundant.
display_mode has members named vdisplay and hdisplay and this avoids any
potential confusion.
>
> > + int psr_max_h = 0, psr_max_v = 0;
>
> And this still reads as "max height" to my brain, but meh.
And here I thought this version leaves no room for confusion :) I should
just ask someone else to write this patch.
>
> >
> > /*
> > * FIXME psr2_support is messed up. It's both computed
> > @@ -462,10 +463,18 @@ static bool intel_psr2_config_valid(struct intel_dp
> > *intel_dp,
> > if (!dev_priv->psr.psr2_support)
> > return false;
> >
> > - /* PSR2 is restricted to work with panel resolutions up to 3640x2304 */
> > - if (adjusted_mode->crtc_hdisplay > 3640 ||
> > - adjusted_mode->crtc_vdisplay > 2304) {
> > - DRM_DEBUG_KMS("PSR2 not enabled, panel resolution too big\n");
> > + if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 10 || IS_GEMINILAKE(dev_priv)) {
> > + psr_max_h = 4096;
> > + psr_max_v = 2304;
> > + } else if (IS_GEN9(dev_priv)) {
> > + psr_max_h = 3640;
> > + psr_max_v = 2304;
> > + }
>
> pre-SKL?
No PSR2 on pre-skl
If we do somehow end up here, returning false and printing a debug
message will be useful.
>
> > +
> > + if (crtc_hdisplay > psr_max_h || crtc_vdisplay > psr_max_v) {
> > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("PSR2 not enabled, resolution %dx%d > max
> > supported %dx%d\n",
> > + crtc_hdisplay, crtc_vdisplay,
> > + psr_max_h, psr_max_v);
> > return false;
> > }
> >
> > --
> > 2.14.1
>
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3] drm/i915/psr: Update PSR2 resolution check for Cannonlake
On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 12:33:55PM -0800, Dhinakaran Pandiyan wrote:
> In fact, apply the Cannonlake resolution check for all >= Gen-10 platforms
> to be safe.
>
> v3: Update GLK too. (Ville)
> Longer variable names.
> if-else in place of ternary operator.
> v2: Use local variables for resolution limits and print them (Ville)
>
> Cc: Ville Syrjälä
> Cc: Rodrigo Vivi
> Cc: Elio Martinez Monroy
> Signed-off-by: Dhinakaran Pandiyan
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c | 21 +++--
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> index 05770790a4e9..23175c5c4a50 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> @@ -451,8 +451,9 @@ static bool intel_psr2_config_valid(struct intel_dp
> *intel_dp,
> {
> struct intel_digital_port *dig_port = dp_to_dig_port(intel_dp);
> struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dig_port->base.base.dev);
> - const struct drm_display_mode *adjusted_mode =
> - &crtc_state->base.adjusted_mode;
> + int crtc_hdisplay = crtc_state->base.adjusted_mode.crtc_hdisplay;
> + int crtc_vdisplay = crtc_state->base.adjusted_mode.crtc_vdisplay;
^
The crtc_ prefix is pretty much redundant.
> + int psr_max_h = 0, psr_max_v = 0;
And this still reads as "max height" to my brain, but meh.
>
> /*
>* FIXME psr2_support is messed up. It's both computed
> @@ -462,10 +463,18 @@ static bool intel_psr2_config_valid(struct intel_dp
> *intel_dp,
> if (!dev_priv->psr.psr2_support)
> return false;
>
> - /* PSR2 is restricted to work with panel resolutions up to 3640x2304 */
> - if (adjusted_mode->crtc_hdisplay > 3640 ||
> - adjusted_mode->crtc_vdisplay > 2304) {
> - DRM_DEBUG_KMS("PSR2 not enabled, panel resolution too big\n");
> + if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 10 || IS_GEMINILAKE(dev_priv)) {
> + psr_max_h = 4096;
> + psr_max_v = 2304;
> + } else if (IS_GEN9(dev_priv)) {
> + psr_max_h = 3640;
> + psr_max_v = 2304;
> + }
pre-SKL?
> +
> + if (crtc_hdisplay > psr_max_h || crtc_vdisplay > psr_max_v) {
> + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("PSR2 not enabled, resolution %dx%d > max
> supported %dx%d\n",
> + crtc_hdisplay, crtc_vdisplay,
> + psr_max_h, psr_max_v);
> return false;
> }
>
> --
> 2.14.1
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
