Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: Reuse intel_adjusted_rate() for pfit pixel rate adjustment

From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
To: "Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: Reuse intel_adjusted_rate() for pfit pixel rate adjustment
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2021 17:50:53 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <878s62m52q.fsf@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YGXXRQ3TbenjHh8/@intel.com>

On Thu, 01 Apr 2021, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 03:55:20PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2021, Ville Syrjala <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
>> >
>> > Replace the hand rolled pfit downscale calculations with
>> > intel_adjusted_rate().
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
>> > ---
>> >  .../gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_atomic_plane.c |  6 ++---
>> >  .../gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_atomic_plane.h |  4 ++++
>> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c  | 23 +++++--------------
>> >  3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_atomic_plane.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_atomic_plane.c
>> > index 3f830b70b0c1..5f0a5ea474eb 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_atomic_plane.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_atomic_plane.c
>> > @@ -133,9 +133,9 @@ intel_plane_destroy_state(struct drm_plane *plane,
>> >  	kfree(plane_state);
>> >  }
>> >  
>> > -static unsigned int intel_adjusted_rate(const struct drm_rect *src,
>> > -					const struct drm_rect *dst,
>> > -					unsigned int rate)
>> > +unsigned int intel_adjusted_rate(const struct drm_rect *src,
>> > +				 const struct drm_rect *dst,
>> > +				 unsigned int rate)
>> >  {
>> >  	unsigned int src_w, src_h, dst_w, dst_h;
>> >  
>> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_atomic_plane.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_atomic_plane.h
>> > index 5c78a087ed86..dc4d05e75e1c 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_atomic_plane.h
>> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_atomic_plane.h
>> > @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
>> >  
>> >  struct drm_plane;
>> >  struct drm_property;
>> > +struct drm_rect;
>> >  struct intel_atomic_state;
>> >  struct intel_crtc;
>> >  struct intel_crtc_state;
>> > @@ -18,6 +19,9 @@ struct intel_plane_state;
>> >  
>> >  extern const struct drm_plane_helper_funcs intel_plane_helper_funcs;
>> >  
>> > +unsigned int intel_adjusted_rate(const struct drm_rect *src,
>> > +				 const struct drm_rect *dst,
>> > +				 unsigned int rate);
>> >  unsigned int intel_plane_pixel_rate(const struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state,
>> >  				    const struct intel_plane_state *plane_state);
>> >  
>> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
>> > index d74b263c5f4e..472e691286c6 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
>> > @@ -3978,7 +3978,7 @@ static bool intel_crtc_supports_double_wide(const struct intel_crtc *crtc)
>> >  static u32 ilk_pipe_pixel_rate(const struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state)
>> >  {
>> >  	u32 pixel_rate = crtc_state->hw.pipe_mode.crtc_clock;
>> > -	unsigned int pipe_w, pipe_h, pfit_w, pfit_h;
>> > +	struct drm_rect src;
>> >  
>> >  	/*
>> >  	 * We only use IF-ID interlacing. If we ever use
>> > @@ -3988,23 +3988,12 @@ static u32 ilk_pipe_pixel_rate(const struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state)
>> >  	if (!crtc_state->pch_pfit.enabled)
>> >  		return pixel_rate;
>> >  
>> > -	pipe_w = crtc_state->pipe_src_w;
>> > -	pipe_h = crtc_state->pipe_src_h;
>> > +	drm_rect_init(&src, 0, 0,
>> > +		      crtc_state->pipe_src_w << 16,
>> > +		      crtc_state->pipe_src_h << 16);
>> >  
>> > -	pfit_w = drm_rect_width(&crtc_state->pch_pfit.dst);
>> > -	pfit_h = drm_rect_height(&crtc_state->pch_pfit.dst);
>> > -
>> > -	if (pipe_w < pfit_w)
>> > -		pipe_w = pfit_w;
>> 
>> So this is src_w = max(src_w, dst_w) and gets turned into dst_w =
>> min(src_w, dst_w) instead? Ditto for _h. Does it end up being the same
>> thing after the division?
>
> Yes. The min/max just gets rid of the upscaling case,
> ie. causes the division to be just x/x==1 when dst>src.
> Doesn't matter if we use the min or max approach to
> achieve that result.

Ok, thanks.

Reviewed-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx