On Wed, 2018-03-14 at 15:36 -0700, José Roberto de Souza wrote:
> This value is a match of hardware and sink has PSR + if it can be
> enabled by the requested state, see intel_psr_compute_config().
>
> Cc: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h | 4 ++--
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c | 12 ++++++------
> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> index a215aa78b0be..cccaf84415ab 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> @@ -807,8 +807,8 @@ struct intel_crtc_state {
> struct intel_link_m_n dp_m2_n2;
> bool has_drrs;
>
> - bool has_psr;
> - bool has_psr2;
> + bool can_psr;
> + bool can_psr2;
I am not convinced by this change, the computed state either has PSR1 or
PSR2, "can" connotes ambiguity in my opinion.
I was thinking of converting this to an u8 psr = [0,1,2] to mean no PSR,
PSR1 and PSR2 respectively. We can do away with the has/can confusion :)
Using bool does save us 6 bits though depending on how the structure is
packed.
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
