> -----Original Message----- > From: Deak, Imre <imre.deak@xxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 5:03 PM > To: Kandpal, Suraj <suraj.kandpal@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/14] drm/i915/dp_mst: Enable LT fallback between > UHBR/non-UHBR link rates > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 11:52:14AM +0300, Kandpal, Suraj wrote: > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Intel-gfx <intel-gfx-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf > > > Of Imre Deak > > > Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 10:25 PM > > > To: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Subject: [PATCH 14/14] drm/i915/dp_mst: Enable LT fallback between > > > UHBR/non-UHBR link rates > > > > > > Enable switching between UHBR and non-UHBR link rates on MST links > > > when reducing the link parameters after an LT failure. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_link_training.c | 5 ----- > > > 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_link_training.c > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_link_training.c > > > index 0c8e0d6437b5b..270080b2735f2 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_link_training.c > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_link_training.c > > > @@ -1188,11 +1188,6 @@ static bool > > > reduce_link_params_in_bw_order(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, > > > intel_dp->link.force_lane_count != lane_count)) > > > continue; > > > > > > - /* TODO: Make switching from UHBR to non-UHBR rates > > > work. */ > > > - if (drm_dp_is_uhbr_rate(crtc_state->port_clock) != > > > - drm_dp_is_uhbr_rate(link_rate)) > > > - continue; > > > - > > > > Do we need to remove this here, I mean why introduce this piece of > > todo code to begin with specially in this function as > > reduce_link_params_in_bw_order is being defined in this series in one > > of the previous patches. > > That's basically the rule of containing only one change in one patch. > That rule is for different reasons, one is to help with bisecting an issue. In > the earlier patch you refer to the change is to switch the fallback logic to > happen in BW order, but keeping the behavior not to switch between UHBR > <-> non-UHBR rates as it was before. Here at the end of the patchset is also > the point to enable this rate switching, after addressing all the > dependencies for that. > In that case LGTM, Reviewed-by: Suraj Kandpal <suraj.kandpal@xxxxxxxxx> > > Just omit this condition while defining it > > > > Regards, > > Suraj Kandpal > > > > > } > > > > > > -- > > > 2.44.2 > >
