Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] drm/msm/dsi: Adjust pclk rate for compression
From: Dmitry Baryshkov
Date: Fri Jun 09 2023 - 12:58:09 EST
On 08/06/2023 23:36, Marijn Suijten wrote:
Same title suggestion as earlier: s/adjust/reduce
On 2023-05-22 18:08:56, Jessica Zhang wrote:
Adjust the pclk rate to divide hdisplay by the compression ratio when DSC
is enabled.
Signed-off-by: Jessica Zhang <quic_jesszhan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c
index a448931af804..88f370dd2ea1 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c
@@ -561,7 +561,18 @@ void dsi_link_clk_disable_v2(struct msm_dsi_host *msm_host)
clk_disable_unprepare(msm_host->byte_clk);
}
-static unsigned long dsi_get_pclk_rate(const struct drm_display_mode *mode, bool is_bonded_dsi)
+static unsigned long dsi_adjust_compressed_pclk(const struct drm_display_mode *mode,
Nit: adjust_pclk_for_compression
As discussed before we realized that this change is more-or-less a hack,
since downstream calculates pclk quite differently - at least for
command-mode panels. Do you still intend to land this patch this way,
or go the proper route by introducing the right math from the get-go?
Or is the math at least correct for video-mode panels?
Can we please postpone the cmd-vs-video discussion? Otherwise I will
reserve myself a right to push a patch dropping CMD mode support until
somebody comes with a proper way to handle CMD clock calculation.
It is off-topic for the sake of DSC 1.2 support. Yes, all CMD panel
timings are a kind of a hack and should be improved. No, we can not do
this as a part of this series. I think everybody agrees that with the
current way of calculating CMD panel timings, this function does some
kind of a trick.
This function requires a documentation comment to explain that all.
+ const struct drm_dsc_config *dsc)
+{
+ int new_hdisplay = DIV_ROUND_UP(mode->hdisplay * drm_dsc_get_bpp_int(dsc),
This sounds like a prime candidate for msm_dsc_get_bytes_per_line(), if
bits_per_component==8 is assumed. In fact, it then becomes identical
to the following line in dsi_host.c which you added previously:
hdisplay = DIV_ROUND_UP(msm_dsc_get_bytes_per_line(msm_host->dsc), 3);
This would imply a simple /3, but as far as I understand it is not
correct here.
If not, what is the difference between these two calculations? Maybe
they both need to be in a properly-named helper.
+ dsc->bits_per_component * 3);
I hope to see a documentation patch to be posted, telling that this
scales hdisplay and thus pclk by the factor of compressed_bpp /
uncompressed_bpp.
This is not how it is usually done, but I would accept a separate
documentation patch going over the calculation here and in
dsi_timing_setup (and maybe other unobvious cases, if there is anything
left).
As we established in the drm/msm issue [2] there is currently a
confusion whether this /3 (and the /3 in dsi_timing_setup) come from the
ratio between dsi_get_bpp() and dsc->bpp or something else. Can you
clarify that with constants and comments?
[2]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/issues/24
+
+ return (new_hdisplay + (mode->htotal - mode->hdisplay))
+ * mode->vtotal * drm_mode_vrefresh(mode);
As clarified in [1] I was not necessarily suggesting to move this math
to a separate helper, but to also use a few more properly-named
intermediate variables to not have multi-line math and self-documenting
code. These lines could be split to be much more clear.
I think it's fine more or less. One pair of parenthesis is unnecessary,
but that's mostly it. Maybe `new_htotal' variable would make some sense.
Also, please excuse me if this was discussed somewhere. This calculation
means that only the displayed data is compressed, but porches are not
touched. Correct?
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/u4x2vldkzsokfcpbkz3dtwcllbdk4ljcz6kzuaxt5frx6g76o5@uku6abewvye7/
+}
+
+static unsigned long dsi_get_pclk_rate(const struct drm_display_mode *mode,
+ const struct drm_dsc_config *dsc, bool is_bonded_dsi)
{
unsigned long pclk_rate;
@@ -576,6 +587,10 @@ static unsigned long dsi_get_pclk_rate(const struct drm_display_mode *mode, bool
if (is_bonded_dsi)
pclk_rate /= 2;
+ /* If DSC is enabled, divide hdisplay by compression ratio */
+ if (dsc)
+ pclk_rate = dsi_adjust_compressed_pclk(mode, dsc);
Looking for the perfection, I'd also move the pclk adjustment to come
before the is_bonded_dsi check.
The confusion with this comment (and the reason the aforementioned
discussion [2] carried on so long) stems from the fact a division makes
sense for a bit/byte clock, but not for a pixel clock: we still intend
to send the same number of pixels, just spending less bytes on them. So
as you clarify the /3 above, can you also clarify that here or drop this
comment completely when the function is correctly documented instead?
- Marijn
+
return pclk_rate;
}
@@ -585,7 +600,7 @@ unsigned long dsi_byte_clk_get_rate(struct mipi_dsi_host *host, bool is_bonded_d
struct msm_dsi_host *msm_host = to_msm_dsi_host(host);
u8 lanes = msm_host->lanes;
u32 bpp = dsi_get_bpp(msm_host->format);
- unsigned long pclk_rate = dsi_get_pclk_rate(mode, is_bonded_dsi);
+ unsigned long pclk_rate = dsi_get_pclk_rate(mode, msm_host->dsc, is_bonded_dsi);
unsigned long pclk_bpp;
if (lanes == 0) {
@@ -604,7 +619,7 @@ unsigned long dsi_byte_clk_get_rate(struct mipi_dsi_host *host, bool is_bonded_d
static void dsi_calc_pclk(struct msm_dsi_host *msm_host, bool is_bonded_dsi)
{
- msm_host->pixel_clk_rate = dsi_get_pclk_rate(msm_host->mode, is_bonded_dsi);
+ msm_host->pixel_clk_rate = dsi_get_pclk_rate(msm_host->mode, msm_host->dsc, is_bonded_dsi);
msm_host->byte_clk_rate = dsi_byte_clk_get_rate(&msm_host->base, is_bonded_dsi,
msm_host->mode);
--
2.40.1
--
With best wishes
Dmitry