Quoting Matt Atwood (2024-10-18 17:49:35-03:00)
>From: "Heikkila, Juha-pekka" <juha-pekka.heikkila@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>Xe3 has no more support for x-tile on display.
>
>Signed-off-by: Heikkila, Juha-pekka <juha-pekka.heikkila@xxxxxxxxx>
>Signed-off-by: Matt Atwood <matthew.s.atwood@xxxxxxxxx>
>---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_fb.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_fb.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_fb.c
>index a7b4cf8b6d50..2075541bcdf4 100644
>--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_fb.c
>+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_fb.c
>@@ -349,7 +349,7 @@ static const struct intel_modifier_desc intel_modifiers[] = {
> .plane_caps = INTEL_PLANE_CAP_TILING_Y,
> }, {
> .modifier = I915_FORMAT_MOD_X_TILED,
>- .display_ver = DISPLAY_VER_ALL,
>+ .display_ver = { 0, 20 },
Hm... I believe this suffers from a similar issue Matt Roper pointed at
on "[PATCH 05/12] drm/i915/xe3: Underrun recovery does not exist post
Xe2". A quickfix for this would be to use { 0, 29 } here, which would
look weird (as there is no display version 29), but it would be more
future-proof.
As a follow-up series, I believe it would be better to make the
display_ver be exclusive at the end, which would make more sense, as {
ver_a, ver_b } would then mean: this feature is available since version
ver_a and was removed in ver_b. In this example, our display_ver would
become { 0, 30 }.
--
Gustavo Sousa
> .plane_caps = INTEL_PLANE_CAP_TILING_X,
> }, {
> .modifier = DRM_FORMAT_MOD_LINEAR,
>--
>2.45.0
>
