On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 4:09 AM, Ville Syrjälä
<ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 01:59:05PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 02:56:23PM -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
>> > When addressing Imre's comments I noticed:
>> >
>> > error: ‘cnl_set_cdclk’ defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
>> > static void cnl_set_cdclk(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>> > ^
>> > cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
>> >
>> > Ville, since the original is yours I'd like your advise on how to proceed.
>> > 1. squash both
>> > 2. swap the patches and create a temporary emply cnl_set_cdclk
>> > 3. ?
>>
>> I would just ignore that since it gets fixed in the following patches.
>> I know adding unused stuff isn't really looked upon favorably but
>> squashing it with the display init patch would make that patch less
>> focused and quite large. I guess you could squash it with the
>> dynamic cdclk change patch, but then you'd have to reorder the display
>> init patch to be after that and that order doesn't make as much sense
>> since you would then be adding optional extra functionality before the
>> basic functionality in in place.
>
> If you really want to avoid the warning then I guess adding
> __attribute__((unused)) and subsequently removing it would do the trick.
cool! I liked that trick.
So whenever someone is bisecting and end up on that patch the
compilation is not broken with the Werror enabled. ;)
>
>>
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Rodrigo.
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:07 PM, Imre Deak <imre.deak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 09:28:52PM +0300, Vivi, Rodrigo wrote:
>> > >> On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 21:21 +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
>> > >> > On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 09:04:26PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
>> > >> > > On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 05:59:02PM +0000, Vivi, Rodrigo wrote:
>> > >> > > > On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 21:06 +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
>> > >> > > > > > [...]
>> > >> > > > > > +static void cnl_cdclk_pll_update(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>> > >> > > > > > + struct intel_cdclk_state *cdclk_state)
>> > >> > > > > > +{
>> > >> > > > > > + u32 val;
>> > >> > > > > > +
>> > >> > > > > > + if (I915_READ(SKL_DSSM) & CNL_DSSM_CDCLK_PLL_REFCLK_24MHz)
>> > >> > > > > > + cdclk_state->ref = 24000;
>> > >> > > > > > + else
>> > >> > > > > > + cdclk_state->ref = 19200;
>> > >> > > > > > +
>> > >> > > > > > + cdclk_state->vco = 0;
>> > >> > > > > > +
>> > >> > > > > > + val = I915_READ(BXT_DE_PLL_ENABLE);
>> > >> > > > > > + if ((val & BXT_DE_PLL_PLL_ENABLE) == 0)
>> > >> > > > > > + return;
>> > >> > > > > > +
>> > >> > > > > > + if (WARN_ON((val & BXT_DE_PLL_LOCK) == 0))
>> > >> > > > > > + return;
>> > >> > > > > > +
>> > >> > > > > > + cdclk_state->vco = (val & CNL_CDCLK_PLL_RATIO_MASK) * cdclk_state->ref;
>> > >> > > > > > +}
>> > >> > > > > > +
>> > >> > > > > > +static void cnl_get_cdclk(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>> > >> > > > > > + struct intel_cdclk_state *cdclk_state)
>> > >> > > > > > +{
>> > >> > > > > > + u32 divider;
>> > >> > > > > > + int div;
>> > >> > > > > > +
>> > >> > > > > > + cnl_cdclk_pll_update(dev_priv, cdclk_state);
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > The other platforms set cdclk to the ref clock here, not sure
>> > >> > > > > if it's ok to leave it uninited. With that change it looks ok:
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > Not sure how to address this here...
>> > >> > > > I see bxt and skl using the cdclk_state here...
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > Assuming refclk is the bypass clock then just doing what the earlier
>> > >> > > platforms do would be correct.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Yes, according to Bspec the CDCLK freq is the refclock freq when the PLL
>> > >> > is disabled.
>> > >>
>> > >> So, do I need to change anything?
>> > >
>> > > Yes, add the following after cnl_cdclk_pll_update() as done on other
>> > > gen9+ platforms:
>> > >
>> > > cdclk_state->cdclk = cdclk_state->ref;
>> > >
>> > > --Imre
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >> >
>> > >> > > IIRC there was some platform where the bypass clock wasn't the refclk,
>> > >> > > but that was perhaps some future thing. Either way, whatever the
>> > >> > > bypass clock is we will want the readout to correctly reflect it when
>> > >> > > the PLL is off.
>> > >>
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Intel-gfx mailing list
>> > > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Rodrigo Vivi
>> > Blog: http://blog.vivi.eng.br
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Intel-gfx mailing list
>> > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
>>
>> --
>> Ville Syrjälä
>> Intel OTC
>> _______________________________________________
>> Intel-gfx mailing list
>> Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
>
> --
> Ville Syrjälä
> Intel OTC
--
Rodrigo Vivi
Blog: http://blog.vivi.eng.br
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
