From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9531CC433F5 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 08:59:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (gabe.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13785610D1 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 08:59:18 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 13785610D1 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=lists.freedesktop.org Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C1FF89B0B; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 08:59:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mga06.intel.com (mga06.intel.com [134.134.136.31]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2C0789B0B for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 08:59:16 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,10106"; a="282932752" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.85,292,1624345200"; d="scan'208";a="282932752" Received: from orsmga007.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.58]) by orsmga104.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Sep 2021 01:59:16 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.85,292,1624345200"; d="scan'208";a="471902616" Received: from unknown (HELO intel.com) ([10.237.72.91]) by orsmga007-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Sep 2021 01:59:14 -0700 Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 11:59:58 +0300 From: "Lisovskiy, Stanislav" To: Ville =?iso-8859-1?Q?Syrj=E4l=E4?= Cc: "Kulkarni, Vandita" , "intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org" , "Nikula, Jani" , "Navare, Manasi D" Message-ID: <20210914085958.GA27514@intel.com> References: <20210913143923.21119-1-vandita.kulkarni@intel.com> <9dd78b35e9bf41f8816a0e7dedf75c64@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/display: Enable second VDSC engine for higher moderates X-BeenThere: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Intel graphics driver community testing & development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-gfx" On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 10:48:46AM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 07:31:46AM +0000, Kulkarni, Vandita wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ville Syrjälä > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 12:59 PM > > > To: Kulkarni, Vandita > > > Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; Nikula, Jani ; > > > Navare, Manasi D > > > Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/display: Enable second VDSC > > > engine for higher moderates > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 08:09:23PM +0530, Vandita Kulkarni wrote: > > > > Each VDSC operates with 1ppc throughput, hence enable the second VDSC > > > > engine when moderate is higher that the current cdclk. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Vandita Kulkarni > > > > --- > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c | 12 ++++++++++-- > > > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c > > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c > > > > index 161c33b2c869..55878f65f724 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c > > > > @@ -70,6 +70,7 @@ > > > > #include "intel_tc.h" > > > > #include "intel_vdsc.h" > > > > #include "intel_vrr.h" > > > > +#include "intel_cdclk.h" > > > > > > > > #define DP_DPRX_ESI_LEN 14 > > > > > > > > @@ -1291,10 +1292,13 @@ static int intel_dp_dsc_compute_config(struct > > > intel_dp *intel_dp, > > > > struct drm_connector_state *conn_state, > > > > struct link_config_limits *limits) { > > > > + struct intel_cdclk_state *cdclk_state; > > > > 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 = > > > > &pipe_config->hw.adjusted_mode; > > > > + struct intel_atomic_state *state = > > > > + to_intel_atomic_state(pipe_config- > > > >uapi.state); > > > > int pipe_bpp; > > > > int ret; > > > > > > > > @@ -1373,12 +1377,16 @@ static int intel_dp_dsc_compute_config(struct > > > intel_dp *intel_dp, > > > > } > > > > } > > > > > > > > + cdclk_state = intel_atomic_get_cdclk_state(state); > > > > + if (IS_ERR(cdclk_state)) > > > > + return PTR_ERR(cdclk_state); > > > > + > > > > /* > > > > * VDSC engine operates at 1 Pixel per clock, so if peak pixel rate > > > > - * is greater than the maximum Cdclock and if slice count is even > > > > + * is greater than the current Cdclock and if slice count is even > > > > * then we need to use 2 VDSC instances. > > > > */ > > > > - if (adjusted_mode->crtc_clock > dev_priv->max_cdclk_freq || > > > > + if (adjusted_mode->crtc_clock > cdclk_state->actual.cdclk || > > > > > > This is wrong. We compute the cdclk based on the requirements of the > > > mode/etc., not the other way around. According to BSpec guideline, we decide whether we enable or disable second VDSC engine, based on that condition. As I understand that one is about DSC config calculation, based on CDCLK which was calculated. If we bump up CDCLK, to avoid this, will we even then use a second VDSC ever? Another thing is that probably enabling second VDSC is cheaper in terms of power consumption, than bumping up the CDCLK. Stan > > > > Okay , So you suggest that we set the cd clock to max when we have such requirement, than enabling the second engine? > > That seems like the easiest solution. Another option might be to come up > with some lower dotclock limit for the use of the second vdsc. But not > sure we know where the tipping point is wrt. powr consumption. > > -- > Ville Syrjälä > Intel