On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 02:54:12PM +0000, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote: > On Tue, 2020-03-10 at 16:32 +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 06:11:57PM +0200, Stanislav Lisovskiy wrote: > > > We need to start passing memory latency as a > > > parameter when calculating plane wm levels, > > > as latency can get changed in different > > > circumstances(for example with or without SAGV). > > > So we need to be more flexible on that matter. > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Lisovskiy <stanislav.lisovskiy@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 12 ++++++++---- > > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c > > > index 8375054ba27d..c7928c870b0a 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c > > > @@ -4016,6 +4016,7 @@ static int skl_compute_wm_params(const struct > > > intel_crtc_state *crtc_state, > > > int color_plane); > > > static void skl_compute_plane_wm(const struct intel_crtc_state > > > *crtc_state, > > > int level, > > > + u32 latency, > > > > So you didn't change the types? > > Yes, I saw your comment there - and looked into this, however I just > wondered, does it make any sense do to that. The reason is because > skl_latency is anyway defined as u16 in i915_drv.h, just as pri/spr/cur > latencies, so wonder how this "unsigned int" going to fit into this. > Should I maybe then change it to u16 - at least that would somehow > comply with the current declarations. It's u16 in the struct to not waste space. In the code it's just a number so a sized type doesn't make all that much sense. And I think most of the code uses int/unsigned int for it anyway. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
