on the subject: This is not a hw workaround. Please remove the workaround from
the subject and the wrong comment.
"The HSD given is a 'feature' rather than 'bugeco' so no workaround details are
present here."
On Mon, Jan 02, 2023 at 01:39:37PM +0200, Stanislav Lisovskiy wrote:
> According to spec, we should check if output_bpp * pixel_rate is less
> than DDI clock * 72, if UHBR is used.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stanislav Lisovskiy <stanislav.lisovskiy@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c | 11 +++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c
> index bf80f296a8fdb..13baf3cb5f934 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c
> @@ -1582,6 +1582,17 @@ int intel_dp_dsc_compute_config(struct intel_dp *intel_dp,
> drm_dbg_kms(&dev_priv->drm, "DSC: compressed bpp %d slice count %d\n",
> pipe_config->dsc.compressed_bpp,
> pipe_config->dsc.slice_count);
> +
> + /* wa1406899791 */
even if it was a bugeco, the notation doesn't follow the standard.
But anyway, as I pointed out, this is not a workaround so
you probably just want a
HSDES: 1406899791
BSPEC: 49259
in your commit msg.
Also maybe a "Fixes:" tag pointing to the commit that added the sequence
but didn't added this part of the sequence?
> + if (intel_dp_is_uhbr(pipe_config)) {
> + int output_bpp = pipe_config->dsc.compressed_bpp;
> +
> + if (output_bpp * adjusted_mode->crtc_clock >=
> + pipe_config->port_clock * 72) {
> + drm_dbg_kms(&dev_priv->drm, "DP2 UHBR check failed\n");
some probably dummy question:
do we need to add a check for the DP 2.0 above as well?
or it is unecessary/redundant?
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> + }
> }
> /*
> * VDSC engine operates at 1 Pixel per clock, so if peak pixel rate
> --
> 2.37.3
>
