From: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
To: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
Jose Souza <jose.souza@intel.com>,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/30] drm/i915/display: remove explicit CNL handling from intel_cdclk.c
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 23:12:07 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210727061207.36o5typsdqr5srbb@ldmartin-desk2> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210724181207.GL1556418@mdroper-desk1.amr.corp.intel.com>
On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 11:12:07AM -0700, Matt Roper wrote:
>On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 05:10:48PM -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>> The only real platform with DISPLAY_VER == 10 is GLK, so we don't need
>> any checks and supporting code for CNL. Remove code and rename
>> functions/macros accordingly.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_cdclk.c | 72 +++++-----------------
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h | 4 +-
>> 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 58 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_cdclk.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_cdclk.c
>> index ff35c29508d5..34fa4130d5c4 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_cdclk.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_cdclk.c
>> @@ -1195,17 +1195,6 @@ static const struct intel_cdclk_vals glk_cdclk_table[] = {
>> {}
>> };
>>
>> -static const struct intel_cdclk_vals cnl_cdclk_table[] = {
>> - { .refclk = 19200, .cdclk = 168000, .divider = 4, .ratio = 35 },
>> - { .refclk = 19200, .cdclk = 336000, .divider = 2, .ratio = 35 },
>> - { .refclk = 19200, .cdclk = 528000, .divider = 2, .ratio = 55 },
>> -
>> - { .refclk = 24000, .cdclk = 168000, .divider = 4, .ratio = 28 },
>> - { .refclk = 24000, .cdclk = 336000, .divider = 2, .ratio = 28 },
>> - { .refclk = 24000, .cdclk = 528000, .divider = 2, .ratio = 44 },
>> - {}
>> -};
>> -
>> static const struct intel_cdclk_vals icl_cdclk_table[] = {
>> { .refclk = 19200, .cdclk = 172800, .divider = 2, .ratio = 18 },
>> { .refclk = 19200, .cdclk = 192000, .divider = 2, .ratio = 20 },
>> @@ -1339,16 +1328,6 @@ static u8 bxt_calc_voltage_level(int cdclk)
>> return DIV_ROUND_UP(cdclk, 25000);
>> }
>>
>> -static u8 cnl_calc_voltage_level(int cdclk)
>> -{
>> - if (cdclk > 336000)
>> - return 2;
>> - else if (cdclk > 168000)
>> - return 1;
>> - else
>> - return 0;
>> -}
>> -
>> static u8 icl_calc_voltage_level(int cdclk)
>> {
>> if (cdclk > 556800)
>> @@ -1383,15 +1362,6 @@ static u8 tgl_calc_voltage_level(int cdclk)
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> -static void cnl_readout_refclk(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>> - struct intel_cdclk_config *cdclk_config)
>> -{
>> - if (intel_de_read(dev_priv, SKL_DSSM) & CNL_DSSM_CDCLK_PLL_REFCLK_24MHz)
>> - cdclk_config->ref = 24000;
>> - else
>> - cdclk_config->ref = 19200;
>> -}
>> -
>> static void icl_readout_refclk(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>> struct intel_cdclk_config *cdclk_config)
>> {
>> @@ -1422,8 +1392,6 @@ static void bxt_de_pll_readout(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>> cdclk_config->ref = 38400;
>> else if (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 11)
>> icl_readout_refclk(dev_priv, cdclk_config);
>> - else if (IS_CANNONLAKE(dev_priv))
>> - cnl_readout_refclk(dev_priv, cdclk_config);
>> else
>> cdclk_config->ref = 19200;
>>
>> @@ -1439,11 +1407,11 @@ static void bxt_de_pll_readout(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>> }
>>
>> /*
>> - * CNL+ have the ratio directly in the PLL enable register, gen9lp had
>> - * it in a separate PLL control register.
>> + * DISPLAY_VER >= 11 have the ratio directly in the PLL enable register,
>> + * gen9lp had it in a separate PLL control register.
>> */
>> - if (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 11 || IS_CANNONLAKE(dev_priv))
>> - ratio = val & CNL_CDCLK_PLL_RATIO_MASK;
>> + if (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 11)
>> + ratio = val & ICL_CDCLK_PLL_RATIO_MASK;
>> else
>> ratio = intel_de_read(dev_priv, BXT_DE_PLL_CTL) & BXT_DE_PLL_RATIO_MASK;
>>
>> @@ -1530,7 +1498,7 @@ static void bxt_de_pll_enable(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, int vco)
>> dev_priv->cdclk.hw.vco = vco;
>> }
>>
>> -static void cnl_cdclk_pll_disable(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>> +static void icl_cdclk_pll_disable(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>> {
>> intel_de_rmw(dev_priv, BXT_DE_PLL_ENABLE,
>> BXT_DE_PLL_PLL_ENABLE, 0);
>> @@ -1542,12 +1510,12 @@ static void cnl_cdclk_pll_disable(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>> dev_priv->cdclk.hw.vco = 0;
>> }
>>
>> -static void cnl_cdclk_pll_enable(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, int vco)
>> +static void icl_cdclk_pll_enable(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, int vco)
>> {
>> int ratio = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(vco, dev_priv->cdclk.hw.ref);
>> u32 val;
>>
>> - val = CNL_CDCLK_PLL_RATIO(ratio);
>> + val = ICL_CDCLK_PLL_RATIO(ratio);
>> intel_de_write(dev_priv, BXT_DE_PLL_ENABLE, val);
>>
>> val |= BXT_DE_PLL_PLL_ENABLE;
>> @@ -1566,7 +1534,7 @@ static void adlp_cdclk_pll_crawl(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, int vco)
>> u32 val;
>>
>> /* Write PLL ratio without disabling */
>> - val = CNL_CDCLK_PLL_RATIO(ratio) | BXT_DE_PLL_PLL_ENABLE;
>> + val = ICL_CDCLK_PLL_RATIO(ratio) | BXT_DE_PLL_PLL_ENABLE;
>> intel_de_write(dev_priv, BXT_DE_PLL_ENABLE, val);
>>
>> /* Submit freq change request */
>> @@ -1635,7 +1603,7 @@ static void bxt_set_cdclk(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>> int ret;
>>
>> /* Inform power controller of upcoming frequency change. */
>> - if (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 11 || IS_CANNONLAKE(dev_priv))
>> + if (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 11)
>> ret = skl_pcode_request(dev_priv, SKL_PCODE_CDCLK_CONTROL,
>> SKL_CDCLK_PREPARE_FOR_CHANGE,
>> SKL_CDCLK_READY_FOR_CHANGE,
>> @@ -1659,13 +1627,13 @@ static void bxt_set_cdclk(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>> if (HAS_CDCLK_CRAWL(dev_priv) && dev_priv->cdclk.hw.vco > 0 && vco > 0) {
>> if (dev_priv->cdclk.hw.vco != vco)
>> adlp_cdclk_pll_crawl(dev_priv, vco);
>> - } else if (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 11 || IS_CANNONLAKE(dev_priv)) {
>> + } else if (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 11) {
>> if (dev_priv->cdclk.hw.vco != 0 &&
>> dev_priv->cdclk.hw.vco != vco)
>> - cnl_cdclk_pll_disable(dev_priv);
>> + icl_cdclk_pll_disable(dev_priv);
>>
>> if (dev_priv->cdclk.hw.vco != vco)
>> - cnl_cdclk_pll_enable(dev_priv, vco);
>> + icl_cdclk_pll_enable(dev_priv, vco);
>> } else {
>> if (dev_priv->cdclk.hw.vco != 0 &&
>> dev_priv->cdclk.hw.vco != vco)
>> @@ -1691,7 +1659,7 @@ static void bxt_set_cdclk(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>> if (pipe != INVALID_PIPE)
>> intel_wait_for_vblank(dev_priv, pipe);
>>
>> - if (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 11 || IS_CANNONLAKE(dev_priv)) {
>> + if (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 11) {
>> ret = sandybridge_pcode_write(dev_priv, SKL_PCODE_CDCLK_CONTROL,
>> cdclk_config->voltage_level);
>> } else {
>> @@ -1716,7 +1684,7 @@ static void bxt_set_cdclk(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>>
>> intel_update_cdclk(dev_priv);
>>
>> - if (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 11 || IS_CANNONLAKE(dev_priv))
>> + if (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 11)
>> /*
>> * Can't read out the voltage level :(
>> * Let's just assume everything is as expected.
>> @@ -2125,7 +2093,7 @@ int intel_crtc_compute_min_cdclk(const struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state)
>> crtc_state->port_clock >= 540000 &&
>> crtc_state->lane_count == 4) {
>> if (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) == 10) {
>> - /* Display WA #1145: glk,cnl */
>> + /* Display WA #1145: glk */
>> min_cdclk = max(316800, min_cdclk);
>> } else if (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) == 9 || IS_BROADWELL(dev_priv)) {
>> /* Display WA #1144: skl,bxt */
>> @@ -2246,7 +2214,7 @@ static int intel_compute_min_cdclk(struct intel_cdclk_state *cdclk_state)
>>
>> /*
>> * Account for port clock min voltage level requirements.
>> - * This only really does something on CNL+ but can be
>> + * This only really does something on DISPLA_VER >= 11 but can be
>> * called on earlier platforms as well.
>> *
>> * Note that this functions assumes that 0 is
>> @@ -2660,8 +2628,6 @@ void intel_update_max_cdclk(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>> dev_priv->max_cdclk_freq = 648000;
>> else
>> dev_priv->max_cdclk_freq = 652800;
>> - } else if (IS_CANNONLAKE(dev_priv)) {
>> - dev_priv->max_cdclk_freq = 528000;
>> } else if (IS_GEMINILAKE(dev_priv)) {
>> dev_priv->max_cdclk_freq = 316800;
>> } else if (IS_BROXTON(dev_priv)) {
>> @@ -2925,12 +2891,6 @@ void intel_init_cdclk_hooks(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>> dev_priv->display.modeset_calc_cdclk = bxt_modeset_calc_cdclk;
>> dev_priv->display.calc_voltage_level = icl_calc_voltage_level;
>> dev_priv->cdclk.table = icl_cdclk_table;
>> - } else if (IS_CANNONLAKE(dev_priv)) {
>> - dev_priv->display.bw_calc_min_cdclk = skl_bw_calc_min_cdclk;
>> - dev_priv->display.set_cdclk = bxt_set_cdclk;
>> - dev_priv->display.modeset_calc_cdclk = bxt_modeset_calc_cdclk;
>> - dev_priv->display.calc_voltage_level = cnl_calc_voltage_level;
>> - dev_priv->cdclk.table = cnl_cdclk_table;
>> } else if (IS_GEMINILAKE(dev_priv) || IS_BROXTON(dev_priv)) {
>> dev_priv->display.bw_calc_min_cdclk = skl_bw_calc_min_cdclk;
>> dev_priv->display.set_cdclk = bxt_set_cdclk;
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
>> index 8e1392028184..6a894ffd91e1 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
>> @@ -11016,8 +11016,8 @@ enum skl_power_gate {
>> #define BXT_DE_PLL_LOCK (1 << 30)
>> #define BXT_DE_PLL_FREQ_REQ (1 << 23)
>> #define BXT_DE_PLL_FREQ_REQ_ACK (1 << 22)
>> -#define CNL_CDCLK_PLL_RATIO(x) (x)
>> -#define CNL_CDCLK_PLL_RATIO_MASK 0xff
>> +#define ICL_CDCLK_PLL_RATIO(x) (x)
>> +#define ICL_CDCLK_PLL_RATIO_MASK 0xff
>
>We could take this opportunity to switch to REG_GENMASK, REG_FIELD_PREP
>here. Otherwise,
>
>Reviewed-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
I'd rather have a single big patch converting all of i915_reg.h
We are doing this conversion piece by piece for a long time and it seems
we are never going to achieve the desired end result.
todo++
thanks
Lucas De Marchi
>
>>
>> /* GEN9 DC */
>> #define DC_STATE_EN _MMIO(0x45504)
>> --
>> 2.31.1
>>
>
>--
>Matt Roper
>Graphics Software Engineer
>VTT-OSGC Platform Enablement
>Intel Corporation
>(916) 356-2795
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
To: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 04/30] drm/i915/display: remove explicit CNL handling from intel_cdclk.c
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 23:12:07 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210727061207.36o5typsdqr5srbb@ldmartin-desk2> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210724181207.GL1556418@mdroper-desk1.amr.corp.intel.com>
On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 11:12:07AM -0700, Matt Roper wrote:
>On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 05:10:48PM -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>> The only real platform with DISPLAY_VER == 10 is GLK, so we don't need
>> any checks and supporting code for CNL. Remove code and rename
>> functions/macros accordingly.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_cdclk.c | 72 +++++-----------------
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h | 4 +-
>> 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 58 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_cdclk.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_cdclk.c
>> index ff35c29508d5..34fa4130d5c4 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_cdclk.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_cdclk.c
>> @@ -1195,17 +1195,6 @@ static const struct intel_cdclk_vals glk_cdclk_table[] = {
>> {}
>> };
>>
>> -static const struct intel_cdclk_vals cnl_cdclk_table[] = {
>> - { .refclk = 19200, .cdclk = 168000, .divider = 4, .ratio = 35 },
>> - { .refclk = 19200, .cdclk = 336000, .divider = 2, .ratio = 35 },
>> - { .refclk = 19200, .cdclk = 528000, .divider = 2, .ratio = 55 },
>> -
>> - { .refclk = 24000, .cdclk = 168000, .divider = 4, .ratio = 28 },
>> - { .refclk = 24000, .cdclk = 336000, .divider = 2, .ratio = 28 },
>> - { .refclk = 24000, .cdclk = 528000, .divider = 2, .ratio = 44 },
>> - {}
>> -};
>> -
>> static const struct intel_cdclk_vals icl_cdclk_table[] = {
>> { .refclk = 19200, .cdclk = 172800, .divider = 2, .ratio = 18 },
>> { .refclk = 19200, .cdclk = 192000, .divider = 2, .ratio = 20 },
>> @@ -1339,16 +1328,6 @@ static u8 bxt_calc_voltage_level(int cdclk)
>> return DIV_ROUND_UP(cdclk, 25000);
>> }
>>
>> -static u8 cnl_calc_voltage_level(int cdclk)
>> -{
>> - if (cdclk > 336000)
>> - return 2;
>> - else if (cdclk > 168000)
>> - return 1;
>> - else
>> - return 0;
>> -}
>> -
>> static u8 icl_calc_voltage_level(int cdclk)
>> {
>> if (cdclk > 556800)
>> @@ -1383,15 +1362,6 @@ static u8 tgl_calc_voltage_level(int cdclk)
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> -static void cnl_readout_refclk(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>> - struct intel_cdclk_config *cdclk_config)
>> -{
>> - if (intel_de_read(dev_priv, SKL_DSSM) & CNL_DSSM_CDCLK_PLL_REFCLK_24MHz)
>> - cdclk_config->ref = 24000;
>> - else
>> - cdclk_config->ref = 19200;
>> -}
>> -
>> static void icl_readout_refclk(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>> struct intel_cdclk_config *cdclk_config)
>> {
>> @@ -1422,8 +1392,6 @@ static void bxt_de_pll_readout(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>> cdclk_config->ref = 38400;
>> else if (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 11)
>> icl_readout_refclk(dev_priv, cdclk_config);
>> - else if (IS_CANNONLAKE(dev_priv))
>> - cnl_readout_refclk(dev_priv, cdclk_config);
>> else
>> cdclk_config->ref = 19200;
>>
>> @@ -1439,11 +1407,11 @@ static void bxt_de_pll_readout(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>> }
>>
>> /*
>> - * CNL+ have the ratio directly in the PLL enable register, gen9lp had
>> - * it in a separate PLL control register.
>> + * DISPLAY_VER >= 11 have the ratio directly in the PLL enable register,
>> + * gen9lp had it in a separate PLL control register.
>> */
>> - if (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 11 || IS_CANNONLAKE(dev_priv))
>> - ratio = val & CNL_CDCLK_PLL_RATIO_MASK;
>> + if (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 11)
>> + ratio = val & ICL_CDCLK_PLL_RATIO_MASK;
>> else
>> ratio = intel_de_read(dev_priv, BXT_DE_PLL_CTL) & BXT_DE_PLL_RATIO_MASK;
>>
>> @@ -1530,7 +1498,7 @@ static void bxt_de_pll_enable(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, int vco)
>> dev_priv->cdclk.hw.vco = vco;
>> }
>>
>> -static void cnl_cdclk_pll_disable(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>> +static void icl_cdclk_pll_disable(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>> {
>> intel_de_rmw(dev_priv, BXT_DE_PLL_ENABLE,
>> BXT_DE_PLL_PLL_ENABLE, 0);
>> @@ -1542,12 +1510,12 @@ static void cnl_cdclk_pll_disable(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>> dev_priv->cdclk.hw.vco = 0;
>> }
>>
>> -static void cnl_cdclk_pll_enable(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, int vco)
>> +static void icl_cdclk_pll_enable(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, int vco)
>> {
>> int ratio = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(vco, dev_priv->cdclk.hw.ref);
>> u32 val;
>>
>> - val = CNL_CDCLK_PLL_RATIO(ratio);
>> + val = ICL_CDCLK_PLL_RATIO(ratio);
>> intel_de_write(dev_priv, BXT_DE_PLL_ENABLE, val);
>>
>> val |= BXT_DE_PLL_PLL_ENABLE;
>> @@ -1566,7 +1534,7 @@ static void adlp_cdclk_pll_crawl(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, int vco)
>> u32 val;
>>
>> /* Write PLL ratio without disabling */
>> - val = CNL_CDCLK_PLL_RATIO(ratio) | BXT_DE_PLL_PLL_ENABLE;
>> + val = ICL_CDCLK_PLL_RATIO(ratio) | BXT_DE_PLL_PLL_ENABLE;
>> intel_de_write(dev_priv, BXT_DE_PLL_ENABLE, val);
>>
>> /* Submit freq change request */
>> @@ -1635,7 +1603,7 @@ static void bxt_set_cdclk(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>> int ret;
>>
>> /* Inform power controller of upcoming frequency change. */
>> - if (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 11 || IS_CANNONLAKE(dev_priv))
>> + if (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 11)
>> ret = skl_pcode_request(dev_priv, SKL_PCODE_CDCLK_CONTROL,
>> SKL_CDCLK_PREPARE_FOR_CHANGE,
>> SKL_CDCLK_READY_FOR_CHANGE,
>> @@ -1659,13 +1627,13 @@ static void bxt_set_cdclk(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>> if (HAS_CDCLK_CRAWL(dev_priv) && dev_priv->cdclk.hw.vco > 0 && vco > 0) {
>> if (dev_priv->cdclk.hw.vco != vco)
>> adlp_cdclk_pll_crawl(dev_priv, vco);
>> - } else if (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 11 || IS_CANNONLAKE(dev_priv)) {
>> + } else if (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 11) {
>> if (dev_priv->cdclk.hw.vco != 0 &&
>> dev_priv->cdclk.hw.vco != vco)
>> - cnl_cdclk_pll_disable(dev_priv);
>> + icl_cdclk_pll_disable(dev_priv);
>>
>> if (dev_priv->cdclk.hw.vco != vco)
>> - cnl_cdclk_pll_enable(dev_priv, vco);
>> + icl_cdclk_pll_enable(dev_priv, vco);
>> } else {
>> if (dev_priv->cdclk.hw.vco != 0 &&
>> dev_priv->cdclk.hw.vco != vco)
>> @@ -1691,7 +1659,7 @@ static void bxt_set_cdclk(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>> if (pipe != INVALID_PIPE)
>> intel_wait_for_vblank(dev_priv, pipe);
>>
>> - if (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 11 || IS_CANNONLAKE(dev_priv)) {
>> + if (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 11) {
>> ret = sandybridge_pcode_write(dev_priv, SKL_PCODE_CDCLK_CONTROL,
>> cdclk_config->voltage_level);
>> } else {
>> @@ -1716,7 +1684,7 @@ static void bxt_set_cdclk(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>>
>> intel_update_cdclk(dev_priv);
>>
>> - if (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 11 || IS_CANNONLAKE(dev_priv))
>> + if (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 11)
>> /*
>> * Can't read out the voltage level :(
>> * Let's just assume everything is as expected.
>> @@ -2125,7 +2093,7 @@ int intel_crtc_compute_min_cdclk(const struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state)
>> crtc_state->port_clock >= 540000 &&
>> crtc_state->lane_count == 4) {
>> if (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) == 10) {
>> - /* Display WA #1145: glk,cnl */
>> + /* Display WA #1145: glk */
>> min_cdclk = max(316800, min_cdclk);
>> } else if (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) == 9 || IS_BROADWELL(dev_priv)) {
>> /* Display WA #1144: skl,bxt */
>> @@ -2246,7 +2214,7 @@ static int intel_compute_min_cdclk(struct intel_cdclk_state *cdclk_state)
>>
>> /*
>> * Account for port clock min voltage level requirements.
>> - * This only really does something on CNL+ but can be
>> + * This only really does something on DISPLA_VER >= 11 but can be
>> * called on earlier platforms as well.
>> *
>> * Note that this functions assumes that 0 is
>> @@ -2660,8 +2628,6 @@ void intel_update_max_cdclk(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>> dev_priv->max_cdclk_freq = 648000;
>> else
>> dev_priv->max_cdclk_freq = 652800;
>> - } else if (IS_CANNONLAKE(dev_priv)) {
>> - dev_priv->max_cdclk_freq = 528000;
>> } else if (IS_GEMINILAKE(dev_priv)) {
>> dev_priv->max_cdclk_freq = 316800;
>> } else if (IS_BROXTON(dev_priv)) {
>> @@ -2925,12 +2891,6 @@ void intel_init_cdclk_hooks(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>> dev_priv->display.modeset_calc_cdclk = bxt_modeset_calc_cdclk;
>> dev_priv->display.calc_voltage_level = icl_calc_voltage_level;
>> dev_priv->cdclk.table = icl_cdclk_table;
>> - } else if (IS_CANNONLAKE(dev_priv)) {
>> - dev_priv->display.bw_calc_min_cdclk = skl_bw_calc_min_cdclk;
>> - dev_priv->display.set_cdclk = bxt_set_cdclk;
>> - dev_priv->display.modeset_calc_cdclk = bxt_modeset_calc_cdclk;
>> - dev_priv->display.calc_voltage_level = cnl_calc_voltage_level;
>> - dev_priv->cdclk.table = cnl_cdclk_table;
>> } else if (IS_GEMINILAKE(dev_priv) || IS_BROXTON(dev_priv)) {
>> dev_priv->display.bw_calc_min_cdclk = skl_bw_calc_min_cdclk;
>> dev_priv->display.set_cdclk = bxt_set_cdclk;
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
>> index 8e1392028184..6a894ffd91e1 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
>> @@ -11016,8 +11016,8 @@ enum skl_power_gate {
>> #define BXT_DE_PLL_LOCK (1 << 30)
>> #define BXT_DE_PLL_FREQ_REQ (1 << 23)
>> #define BXT_DE_PLL_FREQ_REQ_ACK (1 << 22)
>> -#define CNL_CDCLK_PLL_RATIO(x) (x)
>> -#define CNL_CDCLK_PLL_RATIO_MASK 0xff
>> +#define ICL_CDCLK_PLL_RATIO(x) (x)
>> +#define ICL_CDCLK_PLL_RATIO_MASK 0xff
>
>We could take this opportunity to switch to REG_GENMASK, REG_FIELD_PREP
>here. Otherwise,
>
>Reviewed-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
I'd rather have a single big patch converting all of i915_reg.h
We are doing this conversion piece by piece for a long time and it seems
we are never going to achieve the desired end result.
todo++
thanks
Lucas De Marchi
>
>>
>> /* GEN9 DC */
>> #define DC_STATE_EN _MMIO(0x45504)
>> --
>> 2.31.1
>>
>
>--
>Matt Roper
>Graphics Software Engineer
>VTT-OSGC Platform Enablement
>Intel Corporation
>(916) 356-2795
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-27 6:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 143+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-07-24 0:10 [PATCH 00/30] Remove CNL support Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-24 0:10 ` [Intel-gfx] " Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-24 0:10 ` [PATCH 01/30] drm/i915: fix not reading DSC disable fuse in GLK Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-24 0:10 ` [Intel-gfx] " Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-24 18:03 ` Matt Roper
2021-07-24 18:03 ` [Intel-gfx] " Matt Roper
2021-07-24 0:10 ` [PATCH 02/30] drm/i915/display: split DISPLAY_VER 9 and 10 in intel_setup_outputs() Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-24 0:10 ` [Intel-gfx] " Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-24 17:41 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-07-25 5:02 ` Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-25 5:02 ` [Intel-gfx] " Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-26 10:20 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-26 10:20 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-26 14:01 ` Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-26 14:01 ` Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-24 0:10 ` [PATCH 03/30] drm/i915/display: remove PORT_F workaround for CNL Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-24 0:10 ` [Intel-gfx] " Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-24 18:05 ` Matt Roper
2021-07-24 18:05 ` [Intel-gfx] " Matt Roper
2021-07-24 0:10 ` [PATCH 04/30] drm/i915/display: remove explicit CNL handling from intel_cdclk.c Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-24 0:10 ` [Intel-gfx] " Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-24 18:12 ` Matt Roper
2021-07-24 18:12 ` [Intel-gfx] " Matt Roper
2021-07-27 6:12 ` Lucas De Marchi [this message]
2021-07-27 6:12 ` Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-24 0:10 ` [PATCH 05/30] drm/i915/display: remove explicit CNL handling from intel_color.c Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-24 0:10 ` [Intel-gfx] " Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-24 18:14 ` Matt Roper
2021-07-24 18:14 ` [Intel-gfx] " Matt Roper
2021-07-24 0:10 ` [PATCH 06/30] drm/i915/display: remove explicit CNL handling from intel_combo_phy.c Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-24 0:10 ` [Intel-gfx] " Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-24 18:17 ` Matt Roper
2021-07-24 18:17 ` [Intel-gfx] " Matt Roper
2021-07-24 0:10 ` [PATCH 07/30] drm/i915/display: remove explicit CNL handling from intel_crtc.c Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-24 0:10 ` [Intel-gfx] " Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-24 18:17 ` Matt Roper
2021-07-24 18:17 ` [Intel-gfx] " Matt Roper
2021-07-24 0:10 ` [PATCH 08/30] drm/i915/display: remove explicit CNL handling from intel_ddi.c Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-24 0:10 ` [Intel-gfx] " Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-26 11:00 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-26 11:00 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-24 0:10 ` [PATCH 09/30] drm/i915/display: remove explicit CNL handling from intel_display_debugfs.c Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-24 0:10 ` [Intel-gfx] " Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-26 11:06 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-26 11:06 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-24 0:10 ` [PATCH 10/30] drm/i915/display: remove explicit CNL handling from intel_dmc.c Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-24 0:10 ` [Intel-gfx] " Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-26 11:06 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-26 11:06 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-26 23:21 ` Matt Roper
2021-07-26 23:21 ` [Intel-gfx] " Matt Roper
2021-07-24 0:10 ` [PATCH 11/30] drm/i915/display: remove explicit CNL handling from intel_dp.c Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-24 0:10 ` [Intel-gfx] " Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-26 10:41 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-26 10:41 ` [Intel-gfx] " Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-24 0:10 ` [PATCH 12/30] drm/i915/display: remove explicit CNL handling from intel_dpll_mgr.c Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-24 0:10 ` [Intel-gfx] " Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-26 10:35 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-26 10:35 ` [Intel-gfx] " Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-24 0:10 ` [PATCH 13/30] drm/i915/display: remove explicit CNL handling from intel_vdsc.c Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-24 0:10 ` [Intel-gfx] " Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-26 11:05 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-26 11:05 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-24 0:10 ` [PATCH 14/30] drm/i915/display: remove explicit CNL handling from skl_universal_plane.c Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-24 0:10 ` [Intel-gfx] " Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-26 10:22 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-26 10:22 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-24 0:10 ` [PATCH 15/30] drm/i915/display: remove explicit CNL handling from intel_display_power.c Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-24 0:10 ` [Intel-gfx] " Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-26 10:28 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-26 10:28 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-24 0:11 ` [PATCH 16/30] drm/i915/display: remove CNL ddi buf translation tables Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-24 0:11 ` [Intel-gfx] " Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-26 10:56 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-26 10:56 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-24 0:11 ` [PATCH 17/30] drm/i915/display: rename CNL references in skl_scaler.c Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-24 0:11 ` [Intel-gfx] " Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-26 10:11 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-26 10:11 ` [Intel-gfx] " Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-24 0:11 ` [PATCH 18/30] drm/i915: remove explicit CNL handling from i915_irq.c Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-24 0:11 ` [Intel-gfx] " Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-26 10:59 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-26 10:59 ` [Intel-gfx] " Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-26 15:06 ` Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-26 15:06 ` [Intel-gfx] " Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-24 0:11 ` [PATCH 19/30] drm/i915: remove explicit CNL handling from intel_pm.c Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-24 0:11 ` [Intel-gfx] " Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-26 11:08 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-26 11:08 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-24 0:11 ` [PATCH 20/30] drm/i915: remove explicit CNL handling from intel_mocs.c Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-24 0:11 ` [Intel-gfx] " Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-26 10:21 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-26 10:21 ` [Intel-gfx] " Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-24 0:11 ` [PATCH 21/30] drm/i915: remove explicit CNL handling from intel_pch.c Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-24 0:11 ` [Intel-gfx] " Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-26 10:14 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-26 10:14 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-24 0:11 ` [PATCH 22/30] drm/i915: remove explicit CNL handling from intel_wopcm.c Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-24 0:11 ` [Intel-gfx] " Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-26 10:57 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-26 10:57 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-24 0:11 ` [PATCH 23/30] drm/i915/gt: remove explicit CNL handling from intel_sseu.c Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-24 0:11 ` [Intel-gfx] " Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-26 23:21 ` Matt Roper
2021-07-26 23:21 ` [Intel-gfx] " Matt Roper
2021-07-24 0:11 ` [PATCH 24/30] drm/i915: rename CNL references in intel_dram.c Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-24 0:11 ` [Intel-gfx] " Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-26 10:22 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-26 10:22 ` [Intel-gfx] " Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-24 0:11 ` [PATCH 25/30] drm/i915/gt: rename CNL references in intel_engine.h Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-24 0:11 ` [Intel-gfx] " Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-26 10:38 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-26 10:38 ` [Intel-gfx] " Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-24 0:11 ` [PATCH 26/30] drm/i915: finish removal of CNL Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-24 0:11 ` [Intel-gfx] " Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-26 10:21 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-26 10:21 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-24 0:11 ` [PATCH 27/30] drm/i915: remove GRAPHICS_VER == 10 Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-24 0:11 ` [Intel-gfx] " Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-26 10:08 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-26 10:08 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-24 0:11 ` [PATCH 28/30] drm/i915: rename/remove CNL registers Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-24 0:11 ` [Intel-gfx] " Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-26 10:06 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-26 10:06 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-24 0:11 ` [PATCH 29/30] drm/i915: replace random CNL comments Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-24 0:11 ` [Intel-gfx] " Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-26 10:09 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-26 10:09 ` [Intel-gfx] " Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-24 0:11 ` [PATCH 30/30] drm/i915: switch num_scalers/num_sprites to consider DISPLAY_VER Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-24 0:11 ` [Intel-gfx] " Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-26 10:13 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-26 10:13 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-27 6:59 ` Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-27 6:59 ` Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-24 0:40 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for Remove CNL support Patchwork
2021-07-24 0:41 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.SPARSE: " Patchwork
2021-07-24 1:10 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2021-07-24 2:05 ` [PATCH 00/30] " Jason Ekstrand
2021-07-24 2:05 ` [Intel-gfx] " Jason Ekstrand
2021-07-24 12:37 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure for " Patchwork
2021-07-26 11:07 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2021-07-26 13:59 ` Lucas De Marchi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210727061207.36o5typsdqr5srbb@ldmartin-desk2 \
--to=lucas.demarchi@intel.com \
--cc=daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=jose.souza@intel.com \
--cc=matthew.d.roper@intel.com \
--cc=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.