No need to bump up CDCLK now, as it is now correctly calculated, accounting for DBuf BW as BSpec says. Signed-off-by: Stanislav Lisovskiy <stanislav.lisovskiy@xxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_cdclk.c | 12 ------------ 1 file changed, 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_cdclk.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_cdclk.c index f0dcea4d6357..45469f6833b8 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_cdclk.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_cdclk.c @@ -2055,18 +2055,6 @@ int intel_crtc_compute_min_cdclk(const struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state) /* Account for additional needs from the planes */ min_cdclk = max(intel_planes_min_cdclk(crtc_state), min_cdclk); - /* - * HACK. Currently for TGL platforms we calculate - * min_cdclk initially based on pixel_rate divided - * by 2, accounting for also plane requirements, - * however in some cases the lowest possible CDCLK - * doesn't work and causing the underruns. - * Explicitly stating here that this seems to be currently - * rather a Hack, than final solution. - */ - if (IS_TIGERLAKE(dev_priv)) - min_cdclk = max(min_cdclk, (int)crtc_state->pixel_rate); - /* * Similar story as with skl_write_plane_wm and intel_enable_sagv * - in some certain driver parts, we don't have any guarantee that -- 2.24.1.485.gad05a3d8e5 _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
