Re: [PATCH 3/5] drm/msm/dsi_pll_10nm: Fix bad VCO rate calculation and prescaler
From: Rob Clark
Date: Tue Feb 02 2021 - 13:47:08 EST
On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 6:32 AM AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
<angelogioacchino.delregno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Il 01/02/21 18:31, Rob Clark ha scritto:
> > On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 9:18 AM Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 9:05 AM Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 7:47 AM Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 2:11 AM AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
> >>>> <angelogioacchino.delregno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Il 31/01/21 20:50, Rob Clark ha scritto:
> >>>>>> On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 5:51 AM AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
> >>>>>> <angelogioacchino.delregno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The VCO rate was being miscalculated due to a big overlook during
> >>>>>>> the process of porting this driver from downstream to upstream:
> >>>>>>> here we are really recalculating the rate of the VCO by reading
> >>>>>>> the appropriate registers and returning a real frequency, while
> >>>>>>> downstream the driver was doing something entirely different.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In our case here, the recalculated rate was wrong, as it was then
> >>>>>>> given back to the set_rate function, which was erroneously doing
> >>>>>>> a division on the fractional value, based on the prescaler being
> >>>>>>> either enabled or disabled: this was actually producing a bug for
> >>>>>>> which the final VCO rate was being doubled, causing very obvious
> >>>>>>> issues when trying to drive a DSI panel because the actual divider
> >>>>>>> value was multiplied by two!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> To make things work properly, remove the multiplication of the
> >>>>>>> reference clock by two from function dsi_pll_calc_dec_frac and
> >>>>>>> account for the prescaler enablement in the vco_recalc_rate (if
> >>>>>>> the prescaler is enabled, then the hardware will divide the rate
> >>>>>>> by two).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This will make the vco_recalc_rate function to pass the right
> >>>>>>> frequency to the (clock framework) set_rate function when called,
> >>>>>>> which will - in turn - program the right values in both the
> >>>>>>> DECIMAL_DIV_START_1 and the FRAC_DIV_START_{LOW/MID/HIGH}_1
> >>>>>>> registers, finally making the PLL to output the right clock.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Also, while at it, remove the prescaler TODO by also adding the
> >>>>>>> possibility of disabling the prescaler on the PLL (it is in the
> >>>>>>> PLL_ANALOG_CONTROLS_ONE register).
> >>>>>>> Of course, both prescaler-ON and OFF cases were tested.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This somehow breaks things on sc7180 (display gets stuck at first
> >>>>>> frame of splash screen). (This is a setup w/ an ti-sn65dsi86 dsi->eDP
> >>>>>> bridge)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> First frame of the splash means that something is "a bit" wrong...
> >>>>> ...like the DSI clock is a little off.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't have such hardware, otherwise I would've tried... but what you
> >>>>> describe is a bit strange.
> >>>>> Is there any other older qcom platform using this chip? Any other
> >>>>> non-qcom platform? Is the driver for the SN65DSI86 surely fine?
> >>>>> Anyway, as you know, I would never propose untested patches nor
> >>>>> partially working ones for any reason: I'm sorry that this happened.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't think there is anything publicly avail w/ sc7180 (yet.. but very soon)
> >>>>
> >>>> The ti-sn65dsi86 bridge is used on a bunch of 845/850 devices (like
> >>>> the snapdragon windows laptops).. and I think also the older 835
> >>>> laptops.. ofc that doesn't mean that there isn't some bug, but I'd
> >>>> guess maybe more likely that there is some small difference in DSI vs
> >>>> older devices, or some cmd vs video mode difference.
> >>>>
> >>>> Anyways, seems like the screen did eventually recover so that gives me
> >>>> a bit of confidence to bisect this series, which I'll do a bit later
> >>>> today.
> >>>
> >>> fwiw, this series minus this patch, and everything looks ok.. let me
> >>> take a closer look at what changes with this patch
> >>
> >> Btw, it looks like upstream, config->disable_prescaler is always
> >> false.. I don't suppose you have anything WIP that changes this?
> >
>
> Regarding that one, I have tested the driver in both cases, with
> and without prescaler enabled (both worked fine), then I have decided
> to leave the prescaler option exactly as the previous default.
>
> My plan about this was/still is:
> 1. Wait until this one gets merged (gives me time to also look
> at the other billion patches that I've sent);
> 2. Add the prescaler option DT property and explain that it has
> to be used only with "puny" displays (low resolution, low
> clocks) as with "good ones", enabling the prescaler gives less
> clock jitter (and some microamps more power consumption);
> 3. Add the Spread Spectrum Clock (SSC) functionality with related
> DT properties.
>
> Point 2 and 3 would go in the same series, unless someone does
> N.2 before I do... and N.3 requires a bit of extensive testing,
> which I have already partially started on the FxTec phone.
>
> > fwiw, this is the clk_summary diff with and without this patch:
> >
> > ------------------
> > 270,282c270,282
> > < dsi0_pll_out_div_clk 1 1 0
> > 887039941 0 0 50000 Y
> > < dsi0_pll_post_out_div_clk 0 0 0
> > 221759985 0 0 50000 Y
> > < dsi0_pll_bit_clk 2 2 0
> > 887039941 0 0 50000 Y
> > < dsi0_pclk_mux 1 1 0
> > 887039941 0 0 50000 Y
> > < dsi0_phy_pll_out_dsiclk 1 1 0
> > 147839991 0 0 50000 Y
> > < disp_cc_mdss_pclk0_clk_src 1 1 0
> > 147839991 0 0 50000 Y
> > < disp_cc_mdss_pclk0_clk 1 1 0
> > 147839991 0 0 50000 Y
> > < dsi0_pll_by_2_bit_clk 0 0 0
> > 443519970 0 0 50000 Y
> > < dsi0_phy_pll_out_byteclk 1 1 0
> > 110879992 0 0 50000 Y
> > < disp_cc_mdss_byte0_clk_src 2 2 0
> > 110879992 0 0 50000 Y
> > < disp_cc_mdss_byte0_div_clk_src 1 1
> > 0 55439996 0 0 50000 Y
> > < disp_cc_mdss_byte0_intf_clk 1 1
> > 0 55439996 0 0 50000 Y
> > < disp_cc_mdss_byte0_clk 1 1 0
> > 110879992 0 0 50000 Y
> > ---
> >> dsi0_pll_out_div_clk 1 1 0 887039978 0 0 50000 Y
> >> dsi0_pll_post_out_div_clk 0 0 0 221759994 0 0 50000 Y
> >> dsi0_pll_bit_clk 2 2 0 887039978 0 0 50000 Y
> >> dsi0_pclk_mux 1 1 0 887039978 0 0 50000 Y
> >> dsi0_phy_pll_out_dsiclk 1 1 0 147839997 0 0 50000 Y
> >> disp_cc_mdss_pclk0_clk_src 1 1 0 147839997 0 0 50000 Y
> >> disp_cc_mdss_pclk0_clk 1 1 0 147839997 0 0 50000 Y
> >> dsi0_pll_by_2_bit_clk 0 0 0 443519989 0 0 50000 Y
> >> dsi0_phy_pll_out_byteclk 1 1 0 110879997 0 0 50000 Y
> >> disp_cc_mdss_byte0_clk_src 2 2 0 110879997 0 0 50000 Y
> >> disp_cc_mdss_byte0_div_clk_src 1 1 0 55439999 0 0 50000 Y
> >> disp_cc_mdss_byte0_intf_clk 1 1 0 55439999 0 0 50000 Y
> >> disp_cc_mdss_byte0_clk 1 1 0 110879997 0 0 50000 Y
> > ------------------
> >
> >
>
> This is almost exactly what I saw on my devices as well, you get a
> difference of "just some Hz" (which can be totally ignored), because
> of how the calculation is done now.
>
> Thing is, what you see as PIXEL and BYTE clocks *before* the change is
> Linux thinking that your DSI is at that frequency, while the PLL will
> output *half* the rate, which is exactly what the patch fixes.
>
> "Fun" story is: the Xperia XZ1 (8998) and XZ (8996) have got the same
> display... by lowering the DSI rate on the MSM8996 phone by half, I
> get the same *identical* issues as the 8998 one without this patch.
> The clocks all match between one and another, because.. it's.. the same
> display, after all.
>
> It is because of the aforementioned test that I have raised doubts about
> the TI chip driver (or anything else really).. but then, anything is
> possible.
It does look like, *so far* the TI bridge chip is only used on qc
platforms (according to grep'ing dts), so I suppose I can't rule out
bugs which cancel each other out. Although there are various other
bridges used (for ex, the sdm845 rb3 board has some dsi->hdmi bridge)
I guess it would be useful if we could measure the clk somehow to
confirm that it is running at the rate we think it is..
BR,
-R
> >>>
> >>>>> In any case, just to be perfectly transparent, while being here waiting
> >>>>> for review, this patch series got tested on more smartphones, even ones
> >>>>> that I don't personally own, with different displays.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For your reference, here's a list (all MSM8998..):
> >>>>> - OnePlus 5 (1920x1080)
> >>>>> - F(x)Tec Pro 1 (2160x1080)
> >>>>> - Sony Xperia XZ1 Compact (1280x720)
> >>>>> - Sony Xperia XZ1 (1920x1080)
> >>>>> - Sony Xperia XZ Premium (3840x2160)
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Yeah, no worries, I wasn't trying to imply that the patch was untested.
> >>>>
>
> I know, of course!
>
> >>>> Out of curiosity, are any of those video mode panels?
>
> Yes and "also":
> The FxTec Pro1 has a video mode panel, for which I'm trying to upstream
> the driver...look here: https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1365228/
>
> The Xperia XZ Premium has a Sharp LS055D1SX04 panel under NT35950, which
> can be configured as command or as video mode... I tried both modes, but
> there is some issue with the DPU1/DSI drivers and *DUAL DSI*, as cmd
> does work with some tearing, but video doesn't even start (downstream it
> works).
>
> So the only video mode panel that I could test is that BOE panel on the
> FxTec phone (single dsi), which works just great.
>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Also, something (I assume DSI related) that I was testing on
> >>>>>> msm-next-staging seems to have effected the colors on the panel (ie.
> >>>>>> they are more muted).. which seems to persist across reboots (ie. when
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So much "fun". This makes me think something about the PCC block doing
> >>>>> the wrong thing (getting misconfigured).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> switching back to a good kernel), and interestingly if I reboot from a
> >>>>>> good kernel I see part of the login prompt (or whatever was previously
> >>>>>> on-screen) in the firmware ui screen !?! (so maybe somehow triggered
> >>>>>> the display to think it is in PSR mode??)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From a fast read, the SN65DSI86 is on I2C.. giving it a wrong dsi clock
> >>>>> cannot produce (logically, at least) this, so I say that it is very
> >>>>> unlikely for this to be a consequence of the 10nm pll fixes...
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Note that the bridge can also be programmed via dsi cmd mode packets,
> >>>> which I believe is the case on the 835 laptops (or at least one of
> >>>> them).. but all the things I have are using i2c as the control path.
> >>>>
> >>>>> ...unless the bootloader is not configuring the DSI rates, but that's
> >>>>> also veeeeery unlikely (it always does, or it always does not).
> >>>>
> >>>> I haven't looked at the bootloader display code, but booting back to
> >>>> an old/good kernel didn't change anything.. even powering off didn't.
> >>>> But the ghost image seemed to fade after some time, and by the next
> >>>> morning it was fine. Which is strange. (But tbf, I'm more a gpu guy
> >>>> who works on display only when necessary.. ie. a gpu without a display
> >>>> isn't so much fun ;-))
> >>>>
>
> OpenCL all the way! lol :D
>
> On Qualcomm platforms, the first thing that I've ever done was to bring
> up displays on 8974 Sony platforms... (we're talking about years ago).
>
> I'm a lil more on the display side of things (but growing a beard while
> waiting between a frame and another due to no GPU isn't so much fun
> either!).
>
> >>>>>> Not sure if that is caused by these patches, but if I can figure out
> >>>>>> how to get the panel back to normal I can bisect. I think for now
> >>>>>> I'll drop this series. Possibly it could be a
> >>>>>> two-wrongs-makes-a-right situation that had things working before, but
> >>>>>> I think someone from qcom who knows the DSI IP should take a look.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would be happy if someone from Qualcomm takes a look: after all, there
> >>>>> is no documentation and they're the only ones that can verify this kind
> >>>>> of stuff. Please, Qualcomm.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hopefully someone can take a look.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Besides that, if there's anything I can help with to solve this riddle,
> >>>>> I'm here for you.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks, like I said I'll try applying the patches one by one and see
> >>>> if I can narrow down what made the panel go funny, and we can go from
> >>>> there
> >>>>
> >>>> BR,
> >>>> -R
> >>>>
> >>>>> Yours,
> >>>>> -- Angelo
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> BR,
> >>>>>> -R
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/pll/dsi_pll_10nm.c | 22 +++++++++-------------
> >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/pll/dsi_pll_10nm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/pll/dsi_pll_10nm.c
> >>>>>>> index 8b66e852eb36..5be562dfbf06 100644
> >>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/pll/dsi_pll_10nm.c
> >>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/pll/dsi_pll_10nm.c
> >>>>>>> @@ -165,11 +165,7 @@ static void dsi_pll_calc_dec_frac(struct dsi_pll_10nm *pll)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> pll_freq = pll->vco_current_rate;
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - if (config->disable_prescaler)
> >>>>>>> - divider = fref;
> >>>>>>> - else
> >>>>>>> - divider = fref * 2;
> >>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>> + divider = fref;
> >>>>>>> multiplier = 1 << config->frac_bits;
> >>>>>>> dec_multiple = div_u64(pll_freq * multiplier, divider);
> >>>>>>> dec = div_u64_rem(dec_multiple, multiplier, &frac);
> >>>>>>> @@ -266,9 +262,11 @@ static void dsi_pll_ssc_commit(struct dsi_pll_10nm *pll)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> static void dsi_pll_config_hzindep_reg(struct dsi_pll_10nm *pll)
> >>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>> + struct dsi_pll_config *config = &pll->pll_configuration;
> >>>>>>> void __iomem *base = pll->mmio;
> >>>>>>> + u32 val = config->disable_prescaler ? 0x0 : 0x80;
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - pll_write(base + REG_DSI_10nm_PHY_PLL_ANALOG_CONTROLS_ONE, 0x80);
> >>>>>>> + pll_write(base + REG_DSI_10nm_PHY_PLL_ANALOG_CONTROLS_ONE, val);
> >>>>>>> pll_write(base + REG_DSI_10nm_PHY_PLL_ANALOG_CONTROLS_TWO, 0x03);
> >>>>>>> pll_write(base + REG_DSI_10nm_PHY_PLL_ANALOG_CONTROLS_THREE, 0x00);
> >>>>>>> pll_write(base + REG_DSI_10nm_PHY_PLL_DSM_DIVIDER, 0x00);
> >>>>>>> @@ -499,17 +497,15 @@ static unsigned long dsi_pll_10nm_vco_recalc_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
> >>>>>>> frac |= ((pll_read(base + REG_DSI_10nm_PHY_PLL_FRAC_DIV_START_HIGH_1) &
> >>>>>>> 0x3) << 16);
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - /*
> >>>>>>> - * TODO:
> >>>>>>> - * 1. Assumes prescaler is disabled
> >>>>>>> - */
> >>>>>>> multiplier = 1 << config->frac_bits;
> >>>>>>> - pll_freq = dec * (ref_clk * 2);
> >>>>>>> - tmp64 = (ref_clk * 2 * frac);
> >>>>>>> + pll_freq = dec * ref_clk;
> >>>>>>> + tmp64 = ref_clk * frac;
> >>>>>>> pll_freq += div_u64(tmp64, multiplier);
> >>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>> vco_rate = pll_freq;
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> + if (config->disable_prescaler)
> >>>>>>> + vco_rate = div_u64(vco_rate, 2);
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> DBG("DSI PLL%d returning vco rate = %lu, dec = %x, frac = %x",
> >>>>>>> pll_10nm->id, (unsigned long)vco_rate, dec, frac);
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> 2.29.2
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
>