On 04/11/2018 04:11 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting clinton.a.taylor@xxxxxxxxx (2018-04-12 00:13:26)
From: Clint Taylor <clinton.a.taylor@xxxxxxxxx>
In commit dc911f5bd8aa ("drm/i915/edp: Allow alternate fixed mode for eDP
if available."), the patch was always selecting the alternate refresh rate
even though user space was asking for the higher rate. This patch adds a
check for vrefresh rate as well as the rest of the mode geometry.
V2: use clock instead of vrefresh for compare.
Fixes: dc911f5bd8aac ("Allow alternate fixed mode for eDP if available.")
Cc: David Weinehall <david.weinehall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Clint Taylor <clinton.a.taylor@xxxxxxxxx>
Still leaves the other discussion point in the other thread unresolved.
The fields are supplied by the user and can be arbitrary, so if they
request a clock for a 30Hz mode, instead of using the 40Hz alternative,
we use the 60Hz normal mode (by way of example). Is equality always the
best choice here?
This feature is for testing PSR panels that don't support single frame
setup times in their preferred timing. The down-clocked mode is the
timing that the panel specifically states is supported. If a customer
specifies a custom mode either it should be rejected or the eDP fixed
mode (preferred) should be used. If we want to allow the users to set a
custom timing to their eDP panels then we should get rid of the fixed
mode feature for eDP panels.
-Clint
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
