[PATCH] drm/i915/skl: Increase cursor ddb blocks in multi-pipe config

[PATCH] drm/i915/skl: Increase cursor ddb blocks in multi-pipe config

[Radhakrishna Sripada]

The bspec suggests giving cursor planes a fixed allocation of 8
blocks when running in a multi-CRTC configuration.  However we
have found that this small allocation can only accommodate level
0 watermarks on many platforms, which in turn prevents the
system from entering deeper sleep states.  Let's use a slightly
higher allocation of 16 blocks for the cursor to increase our
chances of enabling lower power states.

Signed-off-by: Radhakrishna Sripada <radhakrishna.sripada@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
index 658a756..a949dac 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
@@ -2933,7 +2933,8 @@ static unsigned int skl_cursor_allocation(int num_active)
 	if (num_active == 1)
 		return 32;
 
-	return 8;
+	/* higher than bspec recommendation (8) */
+	return 16;
 }
 
 static void skl_ddb_entry_init_from_hw(struct skl_ddb_entry *entry, u32 reg)
-- 
1.9.1

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

✗ Ro.CI.BAT: failure for drm/i915/skl: Increase cursor ddb blocks in multi-pipe config

[Patchwork]

== Series Details ==

Series: drm/i915/skl: Increase cursor ddb blocks in multi-pipe config
URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/8656/
State : failure

== Summary ==

Series 8656v1 drm/i915/skl: Increase cursor ddb blocks in multi-pipe config
http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/8656/revisions/1/mbox

Test kms_pipe_crc_basic:
        Subgroup nonblocking-crc-pipe-a-frame-sequence:
                pass       -> FAIL       (ro-bdw-i7-5557U)

fi-bdw-i7-5557u  total:213  pass:201  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:12 
fi-skl-i7-6700k  total:213  pass:188  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:25 
fi-snb-i7-2600   total:213  pass:174  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:39 
ro-bdw-i5-5250u  total:213  pass:197  dwarn:2   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:14 
ro-bdw-i7-5557U  total:213  pass:197  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:1   skip:15 
ro-bdw-i7-5600u  total:213  pass:185  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:28 
ro-bsw-n3050     total:213  pass:172  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:2   skip:39 
ro-byt-n2820     total:213  pass:173  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:3   skip:37 
ro-hsw-i3-4010u  total:213  pass:190  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:23 
ro-hsw-i7-4770r  total:213  pass:190  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:23 
ro-ilk-i7-620lm  total:213  pass:150  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:1   skip:62 
ro-ilk1-i5-650   total:208  pass:150  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:1   skip:57 
ro-ivb-i7-3770   total:213  pass:181  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:32 
ro-ivb2-i7-3770  total:213  pass:185  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:28 
ro-skl3-i5-6260u total:213  pass:201  dwarn:1   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:11 
ro-snb-i7-2620M  total:213  pass:174  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:1   skip:38 
fi-hsw-i7-4770k failed to connect after reboot

Results at /archive/results/CI_IGT_test/RO_Patchwork_1179/

b7936d4 drm-intel-nightly: 2016y-06m-13d-16h-41m-03s UTC integration manifest
e4d9faf drm/i915/skl: Increase cursor ddb blocks in multi-pipe config

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/skl: Increase cursor ddb blocks in multi-pipe config

[Rodrigo Vivi]

I believe we should use whatever BSpec recommends.

If that is not the best behavior and block things out than the spec
needs to be updated or a workaround documented there.

Art? thoughts?

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Radhakrishna Sripada
<radhakrishna.sripada@intel.com> wrote:
> The bspec suggests giving cursor planes a fixed allocation of 8
> blocks when running in a multi-CRTC configuration.  However we
> have found that this small allocation can only accommodate level
> 0 watermarks on many platforms, which in turn prevents the
> system from entering deeper sleep states.  Let's use a slightly
> higher allocation of 16 blocks for the cursor to increase our
> chances of enabling lower power states.
>
> Signed-off-by: Radhakrishna Sripada <radhakrishna.sripada@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> index 658a756..a949dac 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> @@ -2933,7 +2933,8 @@ static unsigned int skl_cursor_allocation(int num_active)
>         if (num_active == 1)
>                 return 32;
>
> -       return 8;
> +       /* higher than bspec recommendation (8) */
> +       return 16;
>  }
>
>  static void skl_ddb_entry_init_from_hw(struct skl_ddb_entry *entry, u32 reg)
> --
> 1.9.1
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx



-- 
Rodrigo Vivi
Blog: http://blog.vivi.eng.br
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: ✗ Ro.CI.BAT: failure for drm/i915/skl: Increase cursor ddb blocks in multi-pipe config

[Sripada, Radhakrishna]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patchwork [mailto:patchwork@emeril.freedesktop.org]
> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 10:54 PM
> To: Sripada, Radhakrishna
> Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> Subject: ✗ Ro.CI.BAT: failure for drm/i915/skl: Increase cursor ddb blocks in
> multi-pipe config
> 
> == Series Details ==
> 
> Series: drm/i915/skl: Increase cursor ddb blocks in multi-pipe config
> URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/8656/
> State : failure
> 
> == Summary ==
> 
> Series 8656v1 drm/i915/skl: Increase cursor ddb blocks in multi-pipe config
> http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/8656/revisions/1/mbox
> 
> Test kms_pipe_crc_basic:
>         Subgroup nonblocking-crc-pipe-a-frame-sequence:
>                 pass       -> FAIL       (ro-bdw-i7-5557U)
The code change is specific to SKL. This is probably a false positive.
> 
> fi-bdw-i7-5557u  total:213  pass:201  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:12
> fi-skl-i7-6700k  total:213  pass:188  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:25
> fi-snb-i7-2600   total:213  pass:174  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:39
> ro-bdw-i5-5250u  total:213  pass:197  dwarn:2   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:14
> ro-bdw-i7-5557U  total:213  pass:197  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:1   skip:15
> ro-bdw-i7-5600u  total:213  pass:185  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:28
> ro-bsw-n3050     total:213  pass:172  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:2   skip:39
> ro-byt-n2820     total:213  pass:173  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:3   skip:37
> ro-hsw-i3-4010u  total:213  pass:190  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:23
> ro-hsw-i7-4770r  total:213  pass:190  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:23
> ro-ilk-i7-620lm  total:213  pass:150  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:1   skip:62
> ro-ilk1-i5-650   total:208  pass:150  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:1   skip:57
> ro-ivb-i7-3770   total:213  pass:181  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:32
> ro-ivb2-i7-3770  total:213  pass:185  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:28
> ro-skl3-i5-6260u total:213  pass:201  dwarn:1   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:11
> ro-snb-i7-2620M  total:213  pass:174  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:1   skip:38
> fi-hsw-i7-4770k failed to connect after reboot
> 
> Results at /archive/results/CI_IGT_test/RO_Patchwork_1179/
> 
> b7936d4 drm-intel-nightly: 2016y-06m-13d-16h-41m-03s UTC integration
> manifest e4d9faf drm/i915/skl: Increase cursor ddb blocks in multi-pipe config

--
Radhakrishna Sripada
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/skl: Increase cursor ddb blocks in multi-pipe config

[Runyan, Arthur J]

The bspec says "These are basic methods that can be used for single and multi-pipe modes. For optimal power usage, the display driver can choose to use more advanced allocation techniques as desired."
So we leave it up to the driver to optimize as it sees fit.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rodrigo Vivi [mailto:rodrigo.vivi@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 4:20 PM
To: Sripada, Radhakrishna
Cc: intel-gfx; drm-intel-fixes@lists.freedesktop.org; Runyan, Arthur J
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/skl: Increase cursor ddb blocks in multi-pipe config

I believe we should use whatever BSpec recommends.

If that is not the best behavior and block things out than the spec needs to be updated or a workaround documented there.

Art? thoughts?

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Radhakrishna Sripada <radhakrishna.sripada@intel.com> wrote:
> The bspec suggests giving cursor planes a fixed allocation of 8 blocks 
> when running in a multi-CRTC configuration.  However we have found 
> that this small allocation can only accommodate level
> 0 watermarks on many platforms, which in turn prevents the system from 
> entering deeper sleep states.  Let's use a slightly higher allocation 
> of 16 blocks for the cursor to increase our chances of enabling lower 
> power states.
>
> Signed-off-by: Radhakrishna Sripada <radhakrishna.sripada@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c 
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c index 658a756..a949dac 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> @@ -2933,7 +2933,8 @@ static unsigned int skl_cursor_allocation(int num_active)
>         if (num_active == 1)
>                 return 32;
>
> -       return 8;
> +       /* higher than bspec recommendation (8) */
> +       return 16;
>  }
>
>  static void skl_ddb_entry_init_from_hw(struct skl_ddb_entry *entry, 
> u32 reg)
> --
> 1.9.1
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx



--
Rodrigo Vivi
Blog: http://blog.vivi.eng.br
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/skl: Increase cursor ddb blocks in multi-pipe config

[Rodrigo Vivi]

Thanks Art. I believe the commit message should be updated to reflect
this is flexible. Probably coping and pasting this part of spec: "More
allocation might be required to support deeper low power states."

So I went now to the spec to review the code and besides the line
above I also notice for this specific case BSpec actually recommend 8
* num_active.
"For each enabled cursor CursorBufAlloc = 8"  "BlocksAvailable =
TotalBlocksAvailable - (8 * NumPipes)."

What I believe in this code it should be return 8 * num_active instead
of a fixed number of 8 or 16. Right?

Thanks,
Rodrigo.

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Runyan, Arthur J
<arthur.j.runyan@intel.com> wrote:
> The bspec says "These are basic methods that can be used for single and multi-pipe modes. For optimal power usage, the display driver can choose to use more advanced allocation techniques as desired."
> So we leave it up to the driver to optimize as it sees fit.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rodrigo Vivi [mailto:rodrigo.vivi@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 4:20 PM
> To: Sripada, Radhakrishna
> Cc: intel-gfx; drm-intel-fixes@lists.freedesktop.org; Runyan, Arthur J
> Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/skl: Increase cursor ddb blocks in multi-pipe config
>
> I believe we should use whatever BSpec recommends.
>
> If that is not the best behavior and block things out than the spec needs to be updated or a workaround documented there.
>
> Art? thoughts?
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Radhakrishna Sripada <radhakrishna.sripada@intel.com> wrote:
>> The bspec suggests giving cursor planes a fixed allocation of 8 blocks
>> when running in a multi-CRTC configuration.  However we have found
>> that this small allocation can only accommodate level
>> 0 watermarks on many platforms, which in turn prevents the system from
>> entering deeper sleep states.  Let's use a slightly higher allocation
>> of 16 blocks for the cursor to increase our chances of enabling lower
>> power states.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Radhakrishna Sripada <radhakrishna.sripada@intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 3 ++-
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c index 658a756..a949dac 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
>> @@ -2933,7 +2933,8 @@ static unsigned int skl_cursor_allocation(int num_active)
>>         if (num_active == 1)
>>                 return 32;
>>
>> -       return 8;
>> +       /* higher than bspec recommendation (8) */
>> +       return 16;
>>  }
>>
>>  static void skl_ddb_entry_init_from_hw(struct skl_ddb_entry *entry,
>> u32 reg)
>> --
>> 1.9.1
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Intel-gfx mailing list
>> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
>
>
>
> --
> Rodrigo Vivi
> Blog: http://blog.vivi.eng.br



-- 
Rodrigo Vivi
Blog: http://blog.vivi.eng.br
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/skl: Increase cursor ddb blocks in multi-pipe config

[Runyan, Arthur J]

That part is trying to just allocate 8 to each cursor.  The buffer used up will be 8*numpipes, but that's because its assuming you can end up enabling a cursor on each pipe.

I think its good to go up to 16.  The kind of latencies we get on skl mean that a 64x64 32bpp cursor with 8 blocks will be restricting package C states even at 1920x1080 60hz.  The 8 number was based on what hardware did for allocation on past projects.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rodrigo Vivi [mailto:rodrigo.vivi@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 12:50 PM
To: Runyan, Arthur J
Cc: Sripada, Radhakrishna; intel-gfx; drm-intel-fixes@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/skl: Increase cursor ddb blocks in multi-pipe config

Thanks Art. I believe the commit message should be updated to reflect this is flexible. Probably coping and pasting this part of spec: "More allocation might be required to support deeper low power states."

So I went now to the spec to review the code and besides the line above I also notice for this specific case BSpec actually recommend 8
* num_active.
"For each enabled cursor CursorBufAlloc = 8"  "BlocksAvailable = TotalBlocksAvailable - (8 * NumPipes)."

What I believe in this code it should be return 8 * num_active instead of a fixed number of 8 or 16. Right?

Thanks,
Rodrigo.

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Runyan, Arthur J <arthur.j.runyan@intel.com> wrote:
> The bspec says "These are basic methods that can be used for single and multi-pipe modes. For optimal power usage, the display driver can choose to use more advanced allocation techniques as desired."
> So we leave it up to the driver to optimize as it sees fit.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rodrigo Vivi [mailto:rodrigo.vivi@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 4:20 PM
> To: Sripada, Radhakrishna
> Cc: intel-gfx; drm-intel-fixes@lists.freedesktop.org; Runyan, Arthur J
> Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/skl: Increase cursor ddb 
> blocks in multi-pipe config
>
> I believe we should use whatever BSpec recommends.
>
> If that is not the best behavior and block things out than the spec needs to be updated or a workaround documented there.
>
> Art? thoughts?
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Radhakrishna Sripada <radhakrishna.sripada@intel.com> wrote:
>> The bspec suggests giving cursor planes a fixed allocation of 8 
>> blocks when running in a multi-CRTC configuration.  However we have 
>> found that this small allocation can only accommodate level
>> 0 watermarks on many platforms, which in turn prevents the system 
>> from entering deeper sleep states.  Let's use a slightly higher 
>> allocation of 16 blocks for the cursor to increase our chances of 
>> enabling lower power states.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Radhakrishna Sripada <radhakrishna.sripada@intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 3 ++-
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c 
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c index 658a756..a949dac 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
>> @@ -2933,7 +2933,8 @@ static unsigned int skl_cursor_allocation(int num_active)
>>         if (num_active == 1)
>>                 return 32;
>>
>> -       return 8;
>> +       /* higher than bspec recommendation (8) */
>> +       return 16;
>>  }
>>
>>  static void skl_ddb_entry_init_from_hw(struct skl_ddb_entry *entry,
>> u32 reg)
>> --
>> 1.9.1
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Intel-gfx mailing list
>> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
>
>
>
> --
> Rodrigo Vivi
> Blog: http://blog.vivi.eng.br



--
Rodrigo Vivi
Blog: http://blog.vivi.eng.br
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/skl: Increase cursor ddb blocks in multi-pipe config

[Sripada, Radhakrishna]

Thanks for the input Rodrigo, Arthur. I will update commit message and repost the patch.

Thanks,
Radhakrishna Sripada
-----Original Message-----
From: Runyan, Arthur J 
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 1:04 PM
To: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@gmail.com>
Cc: Sripada, Radhakrishna <radhakrishna.sripada@intel.com>; intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>; drm-intel-fixes@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: RE: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/skl: Increase cursor ddb blocks in multi-pipe config

That part is trying to just allocate 8 to each cursor.  The buffer used up will be 8*numpipes, but that's because its assuming you can end up enabling a cursor on each pipe.

I think its good to go up to 16.  The kind of latencies we get on skl mean that a 64x64 32bpp cursor with 8 blocks will be restricting package C states even at 1920x1080 60hz.  The 8 number was based on what hardware did for allocation on past projects.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rodrigo Vivi [mailto:rodrigo.vivi@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 12:50 PM
To: Runyan, Arthur J
Cc: Sripada, Radhakrishna; intel-gfx; drm-intel-fixes@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/skl: Increase cursor ddb blocks in multi-pipe config

Thanks Art. I believe the commit message should be updated to reflect this is flexible. Probably coping and pasting this part of spec: "More allocation might be required to support deeper low power states."

So I went now to the spec to review the code and besides the line above I also notice for this specific case BSpec actually recommend 8
* num_active.
"For each enabled cursor CursorBufAlloc = 8"  "BlocksAvailable = TotalBlocksAvailable - (8 * NumPipes)."

What I believe in this code it should be return 8 * num_active instead of a fixed number of 8 or 16. Right?

Thanks,
Rodrigo.

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Runyan, Arthur J <arthur.j.runyan@intel.com> wrote:
> The bspec says "These are basic methods that can be used for single and multi-pipe modes. For optimal power usage, the display driver can choose to use more advanced allocation techniques as desired."
> So we leave it up to the driver to optimize as it sees fit.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rodrigo Vivi [mailto:rodrigo.vivi@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 4:20 PM
> To: Sripada, Radhakrishna
> Cc: intel-gfx; drm-intel-fixes@lists.freedesktop.org; Runyan, Arthur J
> Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/skl: Increase cursor ddb 
> blocks in multi-pipe config
>
> I believe we should use whatever BSpec recommends.
>
> If that is not the best behavior and block things out than the spec needs to be updated or a workaround documented there.
>
> Art? thoughts?
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Radhakrishna Sripada <radhakrishna.sripada@intel.com> wrote:
>> The bspec suggests giving cursor planes a fixed allocation of 8 
>> blocks when running in a multi-CRTC configuration.  However we have 
>> found that this small allocation can only accommodate level
>> 0 watermarks on many platforms, which in turn prevents the system 
>> from entering deeper sleep states.  Let's use a slightly higher 
>> allocation of 16 blocks for the cursor to increase our chances of 
>> enabling lower power states.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Radhakrishna Sripada <radhakrishna.sripada@intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 3 ++-
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c 
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c index 658a756..a949dac 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
>> @@ -2933,7 +2933,8 @@ static unsigned int skl_cursor_allocation(int num_active)
>>         if (num_active == 1)
>>                 return 32;
>>
>> -       return 8;
>> +       /* higher than bspec recommendation (8) */
>> +       return 16;
>>  }
>>
>>  static void skl_ddb_entry_init_from_hw(struct skl_ddb_entry *entry,
>> u32 reg)
>> --
>> 1.9.1
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Intel-gfx mailing list
>> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
>
>
>
> --
> Rodrigo Vivi
> Blog: http://blog.vivi.eng.br



--
Rodrigo Vivi
Blog: http://blog.vivi.eng.br
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx