On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 04:04:26PM -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote: > Separate the two comments: one is a workaround and the other is a sanity > check. We could just compare != 1, but let's treat them differently due > to having different meaning. > > Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@xxxxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 10 ++++++---- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c > index 25eff3728fcd..b4d1078727dc 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c > @@ -3760,14 +3760,16 @@ bool intel_can_enable_sagv(struct drm_atomic_state *state) > sagv_block_time_us = 10; > > /* > - * SKL+ workaround: bspec recommends we disable SAGV when we have > - * more then one pipe enabled > - * > * If there are no active CRTCs, no additional checks need be performed > */ > if (hweight32(intel_state->active_crtcs) == 0) > return true; > - else if (hweight32(intel_state->active_crtcs) > 1) > + > + /* > + * SKL+ workaround: bspec recommends we disable SAGV when we have > + * more then one pipe enabled > + */ > + if (hweight32(intel_state->active_crtcs) > 1) > return false; > > /* Since we're now guaranteed to only have one active CRTC... */ > -- > 2.21.0 > > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
