On 2022-05-02 10:27, Modem, Bhanuprakash wrote: > On Mon-02-05-2022 07:08 pm, Harry Wentland wrote: >> >> >> On 2022-05-02 09:28, Modem, Bhanuprakash wrote: >>> On Fri-29-04-2022 08:02 pm, Murthy, Arun R wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Intel-gfx <intel-gfx-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of >>>>> Bhanuprakash Modem >>>>> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2022 3:21 PM >>>>> To: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; >>>>> amd- >>>>> gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; >>>>> ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; harry.wentland@xxxxxxx; Sharma, Swati2 >>>>> <swati2.sharma@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>> Cc: Rodrigo Siqueira <Rodrigo.Siqueira@xxxxxxx> >>>>> Subject: [Intel-gfx] [V2 3/3] drm/amd/display: Move connector >>>>> debugfs to >>>>> drm >>>>> >>>>> As drm_connector already have the display_info, instead of creating >>>>> "output_bpc" debugfs in vendor specific driver, move the logic to the >>>>> drm >>>>> layer. >>>>> >>>>> This patch will also move "Current" bpc to the crtc debugfs from >>>>> connector >>>>> debugfs, since we are getting this info from crtc_state. >>>>> >>>>> Cc: Harry Wentland <harry.wentland@xxxxxxx> >>>>> Cc: Rodrigo Siqueira <Rodrigo.Siqueira@xxxxxxx> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Bhanuprakash Modem <bhanuprakash.modem@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>> --- >>>> Reviewed-by: Arun R Murthy <arun.r.murthy@xxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> Thanks Arun, >>> >>> @Harry/@Rodrigo, If this change sounds good to you, can you please help >>> to push it? >>> >> >> This changes the output_bpc debugfs behavior on amdgpu and breaks >> the amd_max_bpc IGT test. I don't think we should merge this as-is. > > Yeah, I have floated the IGT changes to support this series: > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpatchwork.freedesktop.org%2Fseries%2F102387%2F&data=05%7C01%7Charry.wentland%40amd.com%7C61d4e4a755a5449ec58308da2c47dd89%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637870984414230229%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=kge5PgzzX81hsFLBKyPfyv7vQpb1Gse72FWuiGtyoAQ%3D&reserved=0 > > > With this IGT change, we can merge this series as-is. I would like to > request you to review IGT patches too. > >> >> This patch also seems dependent on patch 1 of the series. Shouldn't >> they be merged together (please don't merge them as-is, though)? > > Yes, as other patches in this series are already reviewed, I think we > need to plan to merge all patches in this series together (If above IGT > & this patch looks good to you). > Thanks for the context again and apologies I haven't had the time to have a closer look so far. I'll go over these and the IGT patches today and get back to you. Harry > - Bhanu > >> >> Harry >> >>> - Bhanu >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks and Regards, >>>> Arun R Murthy >>>> -------------------- >>> >
