Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] drm/tidss: Remove max_pclk_khz from tidss display features

[Swamil Jain <s-jain1@ti.com>]

On 8/27/25 15:19, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 27/08/2025 12:27, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 11:49:22AM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>>> On 19/08/2025 22:21, Swamil Jain wrote:
>>>> From: Jayesh Choudhary <j-choudhary@ti.com>
>>>>
>>>> TIDSS hardware by itself does not have variable max_pclk for each VP.
>>>> The maximum pixel clock is determined by the limiting factor between
>>>> the functional clock and the PLL (parent to the VP/pixel clock).
>>>
>>> Hmm, this is actually not in the driver, is it? We're not limiting the
>>> pclk based on the fclk.
>>>
>>>> The limitation that has been modeled till now comes from the clock
>>>> (PLL can only be programmed to a particular max value). Instead of
>>>> putting it as a constant field in dispc_features, we can query the
>>>> DM to see if requested clock can be set or not and use it in
>>>> mode_valid().
>>>>
>>>> Replace constant "max_pclk_khz" in dispc_features with
>>>> max_successful_rate and max_attempted_rate, both of these in
>>>> tidss_device structure would be modified in runtime. In mode_valid()
>>>> call, check if a best frequency match for mode clock can be found or
>>>> not using "clk_round_rate()". Based on that, propagate
>>>> max_successful_rate and max_attempted_rate and query DM again only if
>>>> the requested mode clock is greater than max_attempted_rate. (As the
>>>> preferred display mode is usually the max resolution, driver ends up
>>>> checking the highest clock the first time itself which is used in
>>>> subsequent checks).
>>>>
>>>> Since TIDSS display controller provides clock tolerance of 5%, we use
>>>> this while checking the max_successful_rate. Also, move up
>>>> "dispc_pclk_diff()" before it is called.
>>>>
>>>> This will make the existing compatibles reusable if DSS features are
>>>> same across two SoCs with the only difference being the pixel clock.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 7246e0929945 ("drm/tidss: Add OLDI bridge support")
>>>> Reviewed-by: Devarsh Thakkar <devarsht@ti.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jayesh Choudhary <j-choudhary@ti.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Swamil Jain <s-jain1@ti.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/tidss/tidss_dispc.c | 85 +++++++++++++----------------
>>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/tidss/tidss_dispc.h |  1 -
>>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/tidss/tidss_drv.h   | 11 +++-
>>>>   3 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tidss/tidss_dispc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/tidss/tidss_dispc.c
>>>> index c0277fa36425..c2c0fe0d4a0f 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tidss/tidss_dispc.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tidss/tidss_dispc.c
>>>> @@ -58,10 +58,6 @@ static const u16 tidss_k2g_common_regs[DISPC_COMMON_REG_TABLE_LEN] = {
>>>>   const struct dispc_features dispc_k2g_feats = {
>>>>   	.min_pclk_khz = 4375,
>>>>   
>>>> -	.max_pclk_khz = {
>>>> -		[DISPC_VP_DPI] = 150000,
>>>> -	},
>>>> -
>>>>   	/*
>>>>   	 * XXX According TRM the RGB input buffer width up to 2560 should
>>>>   	 *     work on 3 taps, but in practice it only works up to 1280.
>>>> @@ -144,11 +140,6 @@ static const u16 tidss_am65x_common_regs[DISPC_COMMON_REG_TABLE_LEN] = {
>>>>   };
>>>>   
>>>>   const struct dispc_features dispc_am65x_feats = {
>>>> -	.max_pclk_khz = {
>>>> -		[DISPC_VP_DPI] = 165000,
>>>> -		[DISPC_VP_OLDI_AM65X] = 165000,
>>>> -	},
>>>> -
>>>>   	.scaling = {
>>>>   		.in_width_max_5tap_rgb = 1280,
>>>>   		.in_width_max_3tap_rgb = 2560,
>>>> @@ -244,11 +235,6 @@ static const u16 tidss_j721e_common_regs[DISPC_COMMON_REG_TABLE_LEN] = {
>>>>   };
>>>>   
>>>>   const struct dispc_features dispc_j721e_feats = {
>>>> -	.max_pclk_khz = {
>>>> -		[DISPC_VP_DPI] = 170000,
>>>> -		[DISPC_VP_INTERNAL] = 600000,
>>>> -	},
>>>> -
>>>>   	.scaling = {
>>>>   		.in_width_max_5tap_rgb = 2048,
>>>>   		.in_width_max_3tap_rgb = 4096,
>>>> @@ -315,11 +301,6 @@ const struct dispc_features dispc_j721e_feats = {
>>>>   };
>>>>   
>>>>   const struct dispc_features dispc_am625_feats = {
>>>> -	.max_pclk_khz = {
>>>> -		[DISPC_VP_DPI] = 165000,
>>>> -		[DISPC_VP_INTERNAL] = 170000,
>>>> -	},
>>>> -
>>>>   	.scaling = {
>>>>   		.in_width_max_5tap_rgb = 1280,
>>>>   		.in_width_max_3tap_rgb = 2560,
>>>> @@ -376,15 +357,6 @@ const struct dispc_features dispc_am625_feats = {
>>>>   };
>>>>   
>>>>   const struct dispc_features dispc_am62a7_feats = {
>>>> -	/*
>>>> -	 * if the code reaches dispc_mode_valid with VP1,
>>>> -	 * it should return MODE_BAD.
>>>> -	 */
>>>> -	.max_pclk_khz = {
>>>> -		[DISPC_VP_TIED_OFF] = 0,
>>>> -		[DISPC_VP_DPI] = 165000,
>>>> -	},
>>>> -
>>>>   	.scaling = {
>>>>   		.in_width_max_5tap_rgb = 1280,
>>>>   		.in_width_max_3tap_rgb = 2560,
>>>> @@ -441,10 +413,6 @@ const struct dispc_features dispc_am62a7_feats = {
>>>>   };
>>>>   
>>>>   const struct dispc_features dispc_am62l_feats = {
>>>> -	.max_pclk_khz = {
>>>> -		[DISPC_VP_DPI] = 165000,
>>>> -	},
>>>> -
>>>>   	.subrev = DISPC_AM62L,
>>>>   
>>>>   	.common = "common",
>>>> @@ -1347,25 +1315,57 @@ static void dispc_vp_set_default_color(struct dispc_device *dispc,
>>>>   			DISPC_OVR_DEFAULT_COLOR2, (v >> 32) & 0xffff);
>>>>   }
>>>>   
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * Calculate the percentage difference between the requested pixel clock rate
>>>> + * and the effective rate resulting from calculating the clock divider value.
>>>> + */
>>>> +unsigned int dispc_pclk_diff(unsigned long rate, unsigned long real_rate)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	int r = rate / 100, rr = real_rate / 100;
>>>> +
>>>> +	return (unsigned int)(abs(((rr - r) * 100) / r));
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static int check_pixel_clock(struct dispc_device *dispc,
>>>> +			     u32 hw_videoport, unsigned long clock)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	unsigned long round_clock;
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (dispc->tidss->is_ext_vp_clk[hw_videoport])
>>>> +		return 0;
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (clock <= dispc->tidss->max_successful_rate[hw_videoport])
>>>> +		return 0;
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (clock < dispc->tidss->max_attempted_rate[hw_videoport])
>>>> +		return -EINVAL;
>>>> +
>>>> +	round_clock = clk_round_rate(dispc->vp_clk[hw_videoport], clock);
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (dispc_pclk_diff(clock, round_clock) > 5)
>>>> +		return -EINVAL;
>>>> +
>>>> +	dispc->tidss->max_successful_rate[hw_videoport] = round_clock;
>>>> +	dispc->tidss->max_attempted_rate[hw_videoport] = clock;
>>>
>>> I still don't think this logic is sound. This is trying to find the
>>> maximum clock rate, and optimize by avoiding the calls to
>>> clk_round_rate() if possible. That makes sense.
>>>
>>> But checking for the 5% tolerance breaks it, in my opinion. If we find
>>> out that the PLL can do, say, 100M, but we need pclk of 90M, the current
>>> maximum is still the 100M, isn't it?
>>
>> 5% is pretty large indeed. We've been using .5% in multiple drivers and
>> it proved to be pretty ok. I would advise you tu use it too.
> 
> The 5% comes from OMAP DSS, where we had to do pixel clock with a few
> dividers and multipliers. The rates were quite coarse, and we ended up
> having quite a large tolerance.
> 
> I think with tidss, we always have a PLL we control, so we should always
> have very exact clocks. So I'm fine with dropping it to .5%. However,
> this patch and series is about removing the a-bit-too-hardcoded VP clk
> max rate code in the driver, so I would leave everything else to another
> series.
> 
>> It's not clear to me why avoiding a clk_round_rate() call is something
>> worth doing though?
> 
> Hard to say if it's worth doing, someone should make some perf tests.
> However, afaik, the calls do go to the firmware, so it involves
> inter-processor calls. On OMAP DSS checking the clock rates was slow, as
> it involved lots of iterating with dividers and multipliers. Perhaps
> it's much faster here.
> 
>> Even caching the maximum rate you have been able to reach before is
>> pretty fragile: if the PLL changes its rate, or if a sibling clock has
>> set some limits on what the PLL can do, your maximum isn't relevant
>> anymore.
> 
> You're right, although afaik it should not happen with TI's SoCs. We
> would be in trouble anyway if that were the case (e.g. someone starts
> the camera, and suddenly we can't support 1080p anymore).
> 
>> in other words, what's wrong with simply calling clk_round_rate() and
>> checking if it's within a .5% deviation?
> 
> This started with discussions how to replace the hardcoded max VP clock
> rate (used to quickly weed out impossible rates), which in reality was
> actually PLL max clock rate. We don't know the PLL max rate, and can't
> query it, so this approach was taken.
> 
>> At the very least, this should be explained in comments or the commit
>> message.
> 
> I agree.
> 
> Swamil, can you do some perf tests with clk_round_rate()? If it's fast
> (enough), it will simplify the driver.
Yeah Tomi, will do a perf test.

Regards,
Swamil
> 
>   Tomi
>