On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 11:29:37AM +0000, Govindapillai, Vinod wrote:
> On Tue, 2022-03-08 at 19:32 +0200, Ville Syrjala wrote:
> > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com>
> >
> > For modern platforms the spec explicitly states that a
> > SAGV block time of zero means that SAGV is not supported.
> > Let's extend that to all platforms. Supposedly there should
> > be no systems where this isn't true, and it'll allow us to:
> > - use the same code regardless of older vs. newer platform
> > - wm latencies already treat 0 as disabled, so this fits well
> > with other related code
> > - make it a bit more clear when SAGV is used vs. not
> > - avoid overflows from adding U32_MAX with a u16 wm0 latency value
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 14 ++++++++------
> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> > index 21c37115c36e..906501d6b298 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> > @@ -3682,7 +3682,7 @@ intel_sagv_block_time(struct drm_i915_private
> > *dev_priv)
> > &val, NULL);
> > if (ret) {
> > drm_dbg_kms(&dev_priv->drm, "Couldn't read SAGV block
> > time!\n");
> > - return -1;
> > + return 0;
> > }
> >
> > return val;
> > @@ -3691,8 +3691,7 @@ intel_sagv_block_time(struct drm_i915_private
> > *dev_priv)
> > } else if (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) == 9 && !IS_LP(dev_priv)) {
> > return 30;
> > } else {
> > - /* Default to an unusable block time */
> > - return -1;
> > + return 0;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > @@ -3704,7 +3703,7 @@ static void intel_sagv_init(struct drm_i915_private
> > *i915)
> > str_yes_no(intel_has_sagv(i915)), i915->sagv_block_time_us);
> >
> > if (!intel_has_sagv(i915))
> > - i915->sagv_block_time_us = -1;
> > + i915->sagv_block_time_us = 0;
>
> Hi Ville
>
> Currently we set the "sagv_status" as "I915_SAGV_NOT_CONTROLLED" based on the
> number of qgv points.
> So here i915->sagv_block_time_us will be set to 0 even if
> intel_sagv_block_time(i915) would have
> returned some valid values. Is that the desired behavior for sgav watermarks
> calcultations?
I don't think there's much point in calculating the sagv wm if we can't
use sagv anyway.
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
