On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 04:41:54PM -0700, Radhakrishna Sripada wrote:
> Watermark latency is adjusted in cases when latency is 0us for level
> greater than 1, the subsequent levels are disabled. Extract this logic
> into its own function.
> 
> Suggested-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.ro...@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Radhakrishna Sripada <radhakrishna.srip...@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 88 ++++++++++++++++++---------------
>  1 file changed, 48 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> index ef7553b494ea..898e56d2eaf7 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> @@ -2861,15 +2861,59 @@ static void ilk_compute_wm_level(const struct 
> drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>       result->enable = true;
>  }
>  
> +static void
> +adjust_wm_latency(u16 wm[], int max_level, int read_latency,
> +               bool wm_lv_0_adjust_needed)
> +{
> +     int i, level;
> +
> +     /*
> +      * If a level n (n > 1) has a 0us latency, all levels m (m >= n)
> +      * need to be disabled. We make sure to sanitize the values out
> +      * of the punit to satisfy this requirement.
> +      */
> +     for (level = 1; level <= max_level; level++) {
> +             if (wm[level] == 0) {
> +                     for (i = level + 1; i <= max_level; i++)
> +                             wm[i] = 0;
> +
> +                     max_level = level - 1;
> +                     break;
> +             }
> +     }
> +
> +     /*
> +      * WaWmMemoryReadLatency
> +      *
> +      * punit doesn't take into account the read latency so we need
> +      * to add proper adjustement to each valid level we retrieve
> +      * from the punit when level 0 response data is 0us.
> +      */
> +     if (wm[0] == 0) {
> +             for (level = 0; level <= max_level; level++)
> +                     wm[level] += read_latency;
> +     }
> +
> +     /*
> +      * WA Level-0 adjustment for 16GB DIMMs: SKL+
> +      * If we could not get dimm info enable this WA to prevent from
> +      * any underrun. If not able to get Dimm info assume 16GB dimm
> +      * to avoid any underrun.
> +      */
> +     if (wm_lv_0_adjust_needed)
> +             wm[0] += 1;
> +}
> +
>  static void intel_read_wm_latency(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>                                 u16 wm[])
>  {
>       struct intel_uncore *uncore = &dev_priv->uncore;
>  
>       if (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 9) {
> +             int read_latency = DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 12 ? 3 : 2;
>               u32 val;
> -             int ret, i;
> -             int level, max_level = ilk_wm_max_level(dev_priv);
> +             int ret;
> +             int max_level = ilk_wm_max_level(dev_priv);
>               int mult = IS_DG2(dev_priv) ? 2 : 1;
>  
>               /* read the first set of memory latencies[0:3] */
> @@ -2909,44 +2953,8 @@ static void intel_read_wm_latency(struct 
> drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>               wm[7] = ((val >> GEN9_MEM_LATENCY_LEVEL_3_7_SHIFT) &
>                               GEN9_MEM_LATENCY_LEVEL_MASK) * mult;
>  
> -             /*
> -              * If a level n (n > 1) has a 0us latency, all levels m (m >= n)
> -              * need to be disabled. We make sure to sanitize the values out
> -              * of the punit to satisfy this requirement.
> -              */
> -             for (level = 1; level <= max_level; level++) {
> -                     if (wm[level] == 0) {
> -                             for (i = level + 1; i <= max_level; i++)
> -                                     wm[i] = 0;
> -
> -                             max_level = level - 1;
> -
> -                             break;
> -                     }
> -             }
> -
> -             /*
> -              * WaWmMemoryReadLatency
> -              *
> -              * punit doesn't take into account the read latency so we need
> -              * to add proper adjustement to each valid level we retrieve
> -              * from the punit when level 0 response data is 0us.
> -              */
> -             if (wm[0] == 0) {
> -                     u8 adjust = DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 12 ? 3 : 2;
> -
> -                     for (level = 0; level <= max_level; level++)
> -                             wm[level] += adjust;
> -             }
> -
> -             /*
> -              * WA Level-0 adjustment for 16GB DIMMs: SKL+
> -              * If we could not get dimm info enable this WA to prevent from
> -              * any underrun. If not able to get Dimm info assume 16GB dimm
> -              * to avoid any underrun.
> -              */
> -             if (dev_priv->dram_info.wm_lv_0_adjust_needed)
> -                     wm[0] += 1;
> +             adjust_wm_latency(wm, max_level, read_latency,
> +                               dev_priv->dram_info.wm_lv_0_adjust_needed);

Would it be cleaner to just pass the dev_priv as a parameter to the
function and have it extract the structure field?  As far as I can tell,
we're never going to pass anything except exactly this field to this
function.

Aside from that,

Reviewed-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.ro...@intel.com>

>       } else if (IS_HASWELL(dev_priv) || IS_BROADWELL(dev_priv)) {
>               u64 sskpd = intel_uncore_read64(uncore, MCH_SSKPD);
>  
> -- 
> 2.25.1
> 

-- 
Matt Roper
Graphics Software Engineer
VTT-OSGC Platform Enablement
Intel Corporation

Reply via email to