Pushed to drm-intel-next, tahnks for the reviews. Manasi On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 12:53:23PM +0530, Nautiyal, Ankit K wrote: > > On 7/20/2021 12:28 AM, Navare, Manasi wrote: > >On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 11:47:51AM +0530, Nautiyal, Ankit K wrote: > >>Patch looks good to me. > >> > >>Please find below some suggestions > >> > >>On 7/15/2021 4:04 AM, Manasi Navare wrote: > >>>Currently when we do the HW state readout, we dont set the shared dpll to NULL > >>>for the bigjoiner slave which should not have a DPLL assigned. So it has > >>>some garbage while the HW state readout is NULL. So explicitly reset > >>>the shared dpll for bigjoiner slave pipe. > >>> > >>>Bug: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/3465 > >>>Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>Cc: Ankit Nautiyal <ankit.k.nautiyal@xxxxxxxxx> > >>>Tested-By: Swati Sharma <swati2.sharma@xxxxxxxxx> > >>checkpatch warning about tested-by tag. > >>>Signed-off-by: Manasi Navare <manasi.d.navare@xxxxxxxxx> > >>>--- > >>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c | 4 ++++ > >>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > >>> > >>>diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c > >>>index 65ddb6ca16e6..c274bfb8e549 100644 > >>>--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c > >>>+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c > >>>@@ -9006,6 +9006,10 @@ verify_crtc_state(struct intel_crtc *crtc, > >>> if (!new_crtc_state->hw.active) > >>> return; > >>>+ if (new_crtc_state->bigjoiner_slave) > >>>+ /* No PLLs set for slave */ > >>>+ pipe_config->shared_dpll = NULL; > >>>+ > >>there is a check for bigjoiner_slave, couple of lines above this: > >> > >>if (new_crtc_state->bigjoiner_slave) > >> master = new_crtc_state->bigjoiner_linked_crtc; > >> > >>Perhaps it will make sense to club the set shared_dpll to NULL, along with > >>these lines. > >Yup, thats where I was resetting in earlier patch but then it actually gets overridden in a function call > >after this point so need to reset it after separately. > > > >Manasi > > You are right. I missed that, pipe_config gets overwritten just before this > point, so the change is at the right place. > > Regards, > > Ankit > > > > > >>In any case: > >> > >>Reviewed-by: Ankit Nautiyal <ankit.k.nautiyal@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >>> intel_pipe_config_sanity_check(dev_priv, pipe_config); > >>> if (!intel_pipe_config_compare(new_crtc_state, _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
