Hi Ville, > -----Original Message----- > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: 11 April 2023 11:11 > To: Golani, Mitulkumar Ajitkumar <mitulkumar.ajitkumar.golani@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] drm/i915/vrr: Relocate VRR > enable/disable > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 08:05:49PM +0000, Golani, Mitulkumar Ajitkumar > wrote: > > Hi Ville, > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Intel-gfx <intel-gfx-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf > > > Of Ville Syrjala > > > Sent: 21 March 2023 19:26 > > > To: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Subject: [PATCH v2 5/6] drm/i915/vrr: Relocate VRR > > > enable/disable > > > > > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Move VRR enabling/disabling into a place where it also works for fastsets. > > > > > > With this we always start the transcoder up in non-VRR mode. > > > Granted we already did that but for a very short period of time. > > > But now that we might end up doing a bit more with the transcoder in > > > non-VRR mode it seems prudent to also update the active timings as > > > the transcoder changes its operating mode. > > > > > > crtc_state->vrr.enable still tracks whether VRR is actually enabled > > > or not, but now we configure all the other VRR timing registers > > > whenever VRR is possible (whether we actually enable it or not). > > > crtc_state->vrr.flipline can now serve as our "is VRR possible" bit of state. > > > > Understood the change. I was thinking if it is possible to make > > distinguish between is VRR "possible" and is VRR "enabled" by adding a > > new param ? Although changes looks good to me but using Flipline value as > "is VRR Possible" makes it bit confusing. > > I suppose we could think about adding a knob for it. It would just reflect the > flipline enable bit state in the current scheme. > > Another thing I was pondering is whether we should even care about this in > intel_dp_prepare_link_train() or if we should just set the MSA ingore bit any > time we have a VRR capable display. But I suppose that could have some > implicatations eg. for interlaces displays modes. In that case to avoid implications should we add additional check for vrr.enable as well ?
