On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 02:01:25PM -0700, Navare, Manasi wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 09:52:57PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 11:32:48AM -0700, Navare, Manasi wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 03:35:23PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 09:40:44PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 11:04:33AM -0700, Navare, Manasi wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 08:49:44PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 03:42:13PM -0700, Manasi Navare wrote: > > > > > > > > From: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The members in hw.mode can be used from adjusted_mode as well, > > > > > > > > use that when available. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some places that use hw.mode can be converted to use adjusted_mode > > > > > > > > as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > v2: > > > > > > > > * Manual rebase (Manasi) > > > > > > > > * remove the use of pipe_mode defined in patch 3 (Manasi) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > v3: > > > > > > > > * Rebase on drm-tip (Manasi) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Previous review was apparently ignored. Or is there a better version > > > > > > > somewhere? If not, this still looks very wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > This was the latest rev that Maarten had in his local tree which he said should address all the review comments. > > > > > > What in particular looks wrong or what review comments were unaddressed here? > > > > > > > > > > The dvo/sdvo changes. > > > > > > > > I recommend just dropping this patch entirely. It doesn't seem to have > > > > anything to do with the bigjoiner anyway. > > > > > > So for the dvo/svdo changes, no need to use the adjusted_mode instead keep using hw.mode? > > > How about other cleanups like: intel_crtc_copy_hw_to_uapi_state(crtc_state, &mode); and > > > static void intel_crtc_copy_hw_to_uapi_state(struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state, > > > + struct drm_display_mode *user_mode) > > > > > > You think we dont need mode as an argument there either? > > > > Not in this patch if all the other stuff disappears. No idea if some > > later patch might need something like it. > > Hi Ville, > > So this patch basically removes the hw.mode and just keeps hw.adjusted_mode > So no need to remove that? > But basically from this patch onwards we say that there is hw.pipe_mode > and hw.adjusted_mode, there is no hw.mode. > Are you suggesting keeping hw.mode as well? Would this be replacing hw.pipe_mode then? No. hw.mode is the original timings, adjusted_mode is the output timings, pipe_mode is the the pipe timings. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
