On Thu, 2022-04-14 at 20:59 +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Wed, Apr 06, 2022 at 08:43:11PM +0300, Vinod Govindapillai wrote: > > In configurations with single DRAM channel, for usecases like > > 4K 60 Hz, FIFO underruns are observed quite frequently. Looks > > like the wm0 watermark values need to bumped up because the wm0 > > memory latency calculations are probably not taking the DRAM > > channel's impact into account. > > > > As per the Bspec 49325, if the ddb allocation can hold at least > > one plane_blocks_per_line we should have selected method2. > > Assuming that modern HW versions have enough dbuf to hold > > at least one line, set the wm blocks to equivalent to blocks > > per line. > > > > V2: styling and comments changes (Ville) > > V3: Updated the reviewed-by tag > > > > cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com> > > cc: Stanislav Lisovskiy <stanislav.lisovs...@intel.com> > > > > Normally people put all the tags in one block, ie. no extra newlines > like this. Also 'Cc:' is the normal form for these. > > I was expecting to see gitlab issue links here. Maybe not Closes: > since this is not the final form I guess. But could slap them on here > as References:. > > > Signed-off-by: Vinod Govindapillai <vinod.govindapil...@intel.com> > > Reviewed-by: Stanislav Lisovskiy <stanislav.lisovs...@intel.com> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c > > index 8824f269e5f5..d284ec8aff21 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c > > @@ -5475,6 +5475,25 @@ static void skl_compute_plane_wm(const struct > > intel_crtc_state > > *crtc_state, > > } > > > > blocks = fixed16_to_u32_round_up(selected_result) + 1; > > + /* > > + * Lets have blocks at minimum equivalent to plane_blocks_per_line > > + * as there will be at minimum one line for lines configuration. This > > + * is a work around for FIFO underruns observed with resolutions like > > + * 4k 60 Hz in single channel DRAM configurations. > > + * > > + * As per the Bspec 49325, if the ddb allocation can hold at least > > + * one plane_blocks_per_line, we should have selected method2 in > > + * the above logic. Assuming that modern versions have enough dbuf > > + * and method2 guarantees blocks equivalent to at least 1 line, > > + * select the blocks as plane_blocks_per_line. > > + * > > + * TODO: Revisit the logic when we have better understanding on DRAM > > + * channels' impact on the level 0 memory latency and the relevant > > + * wm calculations. > > + */ > > + if (skl_wm_has_lines(dev_priv, level)) > > + blocks = max_t(u32, blocks, > > + > > fixed16_to_u32_round_up(wp->plane_blocks_per_line)); > > A simple max() should do since the types are the same.
Thanks! I updated that. > > > lines = div_round_up_fixed16(selected_result, > > wp->plane_blocks_per_line); > > > > -- > > 2.25.1 V4 Sent. BR Vinod
