On Fri, 2018-12-21 at 19:14 +0200, Ville Syrjala wrote:
> From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I thought we could remove all the early latency==0 checks
> and rely on skl_wm_method{1,2}() checking for it. But
> skl_compute_plane_wm() applies a bunch of workarounds to bump
> up the latency before calling those guys so clearly it won't
> end up doing the right thing. Also not sure if the calculations
> based on the method1/2 results are safe agaisnt overflows so
> it might not work all that well in any case. Let's put the
> early check back.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> index d132ef10fa60..0aac7e7b660f 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> @@ -4701,6 +4701,9 @@ static void skl_compute_plane_wm(const struct
> intel_crtc_state *cstate,
> to_intel_atomic_state(cstate->base.state);
> bool apply_memory_bw_wa = skl_needs_memory_bw_wa(state);
>
> + if (latency == 0)
> + return;
> +
> /* Display WA #1141: kbl,cfl */
> if ((IS_KABYLAKE(dev_priv) || IS_COFFEELAKE(dev_priv) ||
> IS_CNL_REVID(dev_priv, CNL_REVID_A0, CNL_REVID_B0)) &&
Reviewed-by: Stanislav Lisovskiy <stanislav.lisovskiy@xxxxxxxxx>
--
Best Regards,
Lisovskiy Stanislav
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
