@@ -392,6 +392,10 @@ intel_display_power_put_all_in_set(struct drm_i915_private *i915,
intel_display_power_put_mask_in_set(i915, power_domain_set, power_domain_set->mask);
}
+/*
+ * FIXME: We should probably switch this to a 0-based scheme to be consistent
+ * with how we now name/number DBUF_CTL instances.
+ */
enum dbuf_slice {
DBUF_S1,
DBUF_S2,
@@ -4584,6 +4584,117 @@ static const struct dbuf_slice_conf_entry tgl_allowed_dbufs[] =
{}
};
+static const struct dbuf_slice_conf_entry dg2_allowed_dbufs[] = {
+ {
+ .active_pipes = BIT(PIPE_A),
+ .dbuf_mask = {
+ [PIPE_A] = BIT(DBUF_S1) | BIT(DBUF_S2),
+ },
+ },
+ {
+ .active_pipes = BIT(PIPE_B),
+ .dbuf_mask = {
+ [PIPE_B] = BIT(DBUF_S1) | BIT(DBUF_S2),
+ },
+ },
+ {
+ .active_pipes = BIT(PIPE_A) | BIT(PIPE_B),
+ .dbuf_mask = {
+ [PIPE_A] = BIT(DBUF_S1),
+ [PIPE_B] = BIT(DBUF_S2),
+ },
+ },
+ {
+ .active_pipes = BIT(PIPE_C),
+ .dbuf_mask = {
+ [PIPE_C] = BIT(DBUF_S3) | BIT(DBUF_S4),
+ },
+ },
+ {
+ .active_pipes = BIT(PIPE_A) | BIT(PIPE_C),
+ .dbuf_mask = {
+ [PIPE_A] = BIT(DBUF_S1) | BIT(DBUF_S2),
+ [PIPE_C] = BIT(DBUF_S3) | BIT(DBUF_S4),
+ },
+ },
+ {
+ .active_pipes = BIT(PIPE_B) | BIT(PIPE_C),
+ .dbuf_mask = {
+ [PIPE_B] = BIT(DBUF_S1) | BIT(DBUF_S2),
+ [PIPE_C] = BIT(DBUF_S3) | BIT(DBUF_S4),
+ },
+ },
+ {
+ .active_pipes = BIT(PIPE_A) | BIT(PIPE_B) | BIT(PIPE_C),
+ .dbuf_mask = {
+ [PIPE_A] = BIT(DBUF_S1),
+ [PIPE_B] = BIT(DBUF_S2),
+ [PIPE_C] = BIT(DBUF_S3) | BIT(DBUF_S4),
+ },
+ },
+ {
+ .active_pipes = BIT(PIPE_D),
+ .dbuf_mask = {
+ [PIPE_D] = BIT(DBUF_S3) | BIT(DBUF_S4),
+ },
+ },
+ {
+ .active_pipes = BIT(PIPE_A) | BIT(PIPE_D),
+ .dbuf_mask = {
+ [PIPE_A] = BIT(DBUF_S1) | BIT(DBUF_S2),
+ [PIPE_D] = BIT(DBUF_S3) | BIT(DBUF_S4),
+ },
+ },
+ {
+ .active_pipes = BIT(PIPE_B) | BIT(PIPE_D),
+ .dbuf_mask = {
+ [PIPE_B] = BIT(DBUF_S1) | BIT(DBUF_S2),
+ [PIPE_D] = BIT(DBUF_S3) | BIT(DBUF_S4),
+ },
+ },
+ {
+ .active_pipes = BIT(PIPE_A) | BIT(PIPE_B) | BIT(PIPE_D),
+ .dbuf_mask = {
+ [PIPE_A] = BIT(DBUF_S1),
+ [PIPE_B] = BIT(DBUF_S2),
+ [PIPE_D] = BIT(DBUF_S3) | BIT(DBUF_S4),
+ },
+ },
+ {
+ .active_pipes = BIT(PIPE_C) | BIT(PIPE_D),
+ .dbuf_mask = {
+ [PIPE_C] = BIT(DBUF_S3),
+ [PIPE_D] = BIT(DBUF_S4),
+ },
+ },
+ {
+ .active_pipes = BIT(PIPE_A) | BIT(PIPE_C) | BIT(PIPE_D),
+ .dbuf_mask = {
+ [PIPE_A] = BIT(DBUF_S1) | BIT(DBUF_S2),
+ [PIPE_C] = BIT(DBUF_S3),
+ [PIPE_D] = BIT(DBUF_S4),
+ },
+ },
+ {
+ .active_pipes = BIT(PIPE_B) | BIT(PIPE_C) | BIT(PIPE_D),
+ .dbuf_mask = {
+ [PIPE_B] = BIT(DBUF_S1) | BIT(DBUF_S2),
+ [PIPE_C] = BIT(DBUF_S3),
+ [PIPE_D] = BIT(DBUF_S4),
+ },
+ },
+ {
+ .active_pipes = BIT(PIPE_A) | BIT(PIPE_B) | BIT(PIPE_C) | BIT(PIPE_D),
+ .dbuf_mask = {
+ [PIPE_A] = BIT(DBUF_S1),
+ [PIPE_B] = BIT(DBUF_S2),
+ [PIPE_C] = BIT(DBUF_S3),
+ [PIPE_D] = BIT(DBUF_S4),
+ },
+ },
+ {}
+};
+
static const struct dbuf_slice_conf_entry adlp_allowed_dbufs[] = {
{
.active_pipes = BIT(PIPE_A),
@@ -4759,12 +4870,19 @@ static u32 adlp_compute_dbuf_slices(enum pipe pipe, u32 active_pipes)
return compute_dbuf_slices(pipe, active_pipes, adlp_allowed_dbufs);
}
+static u32 dg2_compute_dbuf_slices(enum pipe pipe, u32 active_pipes)
+{
+ return compute_dbuf_slices(pipe, active_pipes, dg2_allowed_dbufs);
+}
+
static u8 skl_compute_dbuf_slices(struct intel_crtc *crtc, u8 active_pipes)
{
struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(crtc->base.dev);
enum pipe pipe = crtc->pipe;
- if (IS_ALDERLAKE_P(dev_priv))
+ if (IS_DG2(dev_priv))
+ return dg2_compute_dbuf_slices(pipe, active_pipes);
+ else if (IS_ALDERLAKE_P(dev_priv))
return adlp_compute_dbuf_slices(pipe, active_pipes);
else if (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) == 12)
return tgl_compute_dbuf_slices(pipe, active_pipes);
DG2 extends our DDB to four DBuf slices; pipes A+B only have access to the first two slices, whereas pipes C+D only have access to the second two. Confusingly, our bspec decided to switch from 1-based numbering of dbuf slices (S1, S2) to 0-based numbering (S0, S1, S2, S3) in Display13. At the moment we're using the 0-based number scheme for the DBUF_CTL_S() register addressing, but the 1-based number scheme in the actual slice assignment tables. We may want to consider switching the assignment over to 0-based numbering too at some point... Bspec: 49255 Bspec: 50057 Cc: Stanislav Lisovskiy <stanislav.lisovskiy@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com> --- .../drm/i915/display/intel_display_power.h | 4 + drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 120 +++++++++++++++++- 2 files changed, 123 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)