Lyude Paul
2020-Sep-22 21:14 UTC
[Nouveau] [PATCH] drm/nouveau/kms/nv50-: Fix clock checking algorithm in nv50_dp_mode_valid()
On Tue, 2020-09-22 at 17:10 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:> Can we use 6bpc on arbitrary DP monitors, or is there a capability for > it? Maybe only use 6bpc if display_info.bpc == 6 and otherwise use 8?I don't think that display_info.bpc actually implies a minimum bpc, only a maximum bpc iirc (Ville would know the answer to this one). The other thing to note here is that we want to assume the lowest possible bpc here since we're only concerned if the mode passed to ->mode_valid can be set under -any- conditions (including those that require lowering the bpc beyond it's maximum value), so we definitely do want to always use 6bpc here even once we get support for optimizing the bpc based on the available display bandwidth.> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:06 PM Lyude Paul <lyude at redhat.com> wrote: > > While I thought I had this correct (since it actually did reject modes > > like I expected during testing), Ville Syrjala from Intel pointed out > > that the logic here isn't correct. max_clock refers to the max symbol > > rate supported by the encoder, so limiting clock to ds_clock using max() > > doesn't make sense. Additionally, we want to check against 6bpc for the > > time being since that's the minimum possible bpc here, not the reported > > bpc from the connector. See: > > > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2020-September/280276.html > > > > For more info. > > > > So, let's rewrite this using Ville's advice. > > > > Signed-off-by: Lyude Paul <lyude at redhat.com> > > Fixes: 409d38139b42 ("drm/nouveau/kms/nv50-: Use downstream DP clock > > limits for mode validation") > > Cc: Ville Syrj?l? <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com> > > Cc: Lyude Paul <lyude at redhat.com> > > Cc: Ben Skeggs <bskeggs at redhat.com> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_dp.c | 23 +++++++++++++---------- > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_dp.c > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_dp.c > > index 7b640e05bd4cd..24c81e423d349 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_dp.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_dp.c > > @@ -231,23 +231,26 @@ nv50_dp_mode_valid(struct drm_connector *connector, > > const struct drm_display_mode *mode, > > unsigned *out_clock) > > { > > - const unsigned min_clock = 25000; > > - unsigned max_clock, ds_clock, clock; > > + const unsigned int min_clock = 25000; > > + unsigned int max_clock, ds_clock, clock; > > + const u8 bpp = 18; /* 6 bpc */ > > enum drm_mode_status ret; > > > > if (mode->flags & DRM_MODE_FLAG_INTERLACE && !outp- > > >caps.dp_interlace) > > return MODE_NO_INTERLACE; > > > > max_clock = outp->dp.link_nr * outp->dp.link_bw; > > - ds_clock = drm_dp_downstream_max_dotclock(outp->dp.dpcd, > > - outp- > > >dp.downstream_ports); > > - if (ds_clock) > > - max_clock = min(max_clock, ds_clock); > > - > > - clock = mode->clock * (connector->display_info.bpc * 3) / 10; > > - ret = nouveau_conn_mode_clock_valid(mode, min_clock, max_clock, > > - &clock); > > + clock = mode->clock * bpp / 8; > > + if (clock > max_clock) > > + return MODE_CLOCK_HIGH; > > + > > + ds_clock = drm_dp_downstream_max_dotclock(outp->dp.dpcd, outp- > > >dp.downstream_ports); > > + if (ds_clock && mode->clock > ds_clock) > > + return MODE_CLOCK_HIGH; > > + > > + ret = nouveau_conn_mode_clock_valid(mode, min_clock, max_clock, > > &clock); > > if (out_clock) > > *out_clock = clock; > > + > > return ret; > > } > > -- > > 2.26.2 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > dri-devel mailing list > > dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel-- Cheers, Lyude Paul (she/her) Software Engineer at Red Hat
Ilia Mirkin
2020-Sep-22 21:22 UTC
[Nouveau] [PATCH] drm/nouveau/kms/nv50-: Fix clock checking algorithm in nv50_dp_mode_valid()
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:14 PM Lyude Paul <lyude at redhat.com> wrote:> > On Tue, 2020-09-22 at 17:10 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > > Can we use 6bpc on arbitrary DP monitors, or is there a capability for > > it? Maybe only use 6bpc if display_info.bpc == 6 and otherwise use 8? > > I don't think that display_info.bpc actually implies a minimum bpc, only a > maximum bpc iirc (Ville would know the answer to this one). The other thing to > note here is that we want to assume the lowest possible bpc here since we're > only concerned if the mode passed to ->mode_valid can be set under -any- > conditions (including those that require lowering the bpc beyond it's maximum > value), so we definitely do want to always use 6bpc here even once we get > support for optimizing the bpc based on the available display bandwidth.Yeah, display_info is the max bpc. But would an average monitor support 6bpc? And if it does, does the current link training code even try that when display_info.bpc != 6? -ilia
Lyude Paul
2020-Sep-25 22:08 UTC
[Nouveau] [PATCH] drm/nouveau/kms/nv50-: Fix clock checking algorithm in nv50_dp_mode_valid()
On Tue, 2020-09-22 at 17:22 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:14 PM Lyude Paul <lyude at redhat.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 2020-09-22 at 17:10 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > > > Can we use 6bpc on arbitrary DP monitors, or is there a capability for > > > it? Maybe only use 6bpc if display_info.bpc == 6 and otherwise use 8? > > > > I don't think that display_info.bpc actually implies a minimum bpc, only a > > maximum bpc iirc (Ville would know the answer to this one). The other thing > > to > > note here is that we want to assume the lowest possible bpc here since we're > > only concerned if the mode passed to ->mode_valid can be set under -any- > > conditions (including those that require lowering the bpc beyond it's > > maximum > > value), so we definitely do want to always use 6bpc here even once we get > > support for optimizing the bpc based on the available display bandwidth. > > Yeah, display_info is the max bpc. But would an average monitor > support 6bpc? And if it does, does the current link training code even > try that when display_info.bpc != 6?So I did confirm that 6bpc support is mandatory for DP, so yes-6 bpc will always work. But also, your second comment doesn't really apply here. So: to be clear, we're not really concerned here about whether nouveau will actually use 6bpc or not. In truth I'm not actually sure either if we have any code that uses 6bpc (iirc we don't), since we don't current optimize bpc. I think it's very possible for us to use 6bpc for eDP displays if I recall though, but I'm not sure on that. But that's also not the point of this code. ->mode_valid() is only used in two situations in DRM modesetting: when probing connector modes, and when checking if a mode is valid or not during the atomic check for atomic modesetting. Its purpose is only to reject display modes that are physically impossible to set in hardware due to static hardware constraints. Put another way, we only check the given mode against constraints which will always remain constant regardless of the rest of the display state. An example of a static constraint would be the max pixel clock supported by the hardware, since on sensible hardware this never changes. A dynamic constraint would be something like how much bandwidth is currently unused on an MST topology, since that value is entirely dependent on the rest of the display state. So - with that said, bpc is technically a dynamic constraint because while a sink and source both likely have their own bpc limits, any bpc which is equal or below that limit can be used depending on what the driver decides - which will be based on the max_bpc property, and additionally for MST displays it will also depend on the available bandwidth on the topology. The only non-dynamic thing about bpc is that at a minimum, it will be 6 - so any mode that doesn't fit on the link with a bpc of 6 is guaranteed to be a mode that we'll never be able to set and therefore want to prune. So, even if we're not using 6 in the majority of situations, I'm fairly confident it's the right value here. It's also what i915 does as well (and they previously had to fix a bug that was the result of assuming a minimum of 8bpc instead of 6).> > -ilia >-- Sincerely, Lyude Paul (she/her) Software Engineer at Red Hat
Seemingly Similar Threads
- [PATCH] drm/nouveau/kms/nv50-: Fix clock checking algorithm in nv50_dp_mode_valid()
- [PATCH] drm/nouveau/kms/nv50-: Fix clock checking algorithm in nv50_dp_mode_valid()
- [PATCH] drm/nouveau/kms/nv50-: Fix clock checking algorithm in nv50_dp_mode_valid()
- [PATCH] drm/nouveau/kms/nv50-: Fix clock checking algorithm in nv50_dp_mode_valid()
- [PATCH] drm/nouveau/kms/nv50-: Fix clock checking algorithm in nv50_dp_mode_valid()