On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 01:55:19PM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > 2014/1/8 Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx>: > > On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 11:12:27AM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > >> From: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> Properly zero the refcounts and crtc->ddi_pll_set so the previous HW > >> state doesn't affect the result of reading the current HW state. > >> > >> This fixes WARNs about WRPLL refcount if we have an HDMI monitor on > >> HSW and then suspend/resume. > >> > >> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=64379 > >> Tested-by: Qingshuai Tian <qingshuai.tian@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c | 8 +++++++- > >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c > >> index 4ec1665..0def5ef 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c > >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c > >> @@ -1136,12 +1136,18 @@ void intel_ddi_setup_hw_pll_state(struct drm_device *dev) > >> enum pipe pipe; > >> struct intel_crtc *intel_crtc; > >> > >> + dev_priv->ddi_plls.spll_refcount = 0; > >> + dev_priv->ddi_plls.wrpll1_refcount = 0; > >> + dev_priv->ddi_plls.wrpll2_refcount = 0; > > > > One idea I have for the longer-term is to unify the ddi pll > > refcounting/readout stuff with the logic I've created for shared pch plls. > > The pch pll sharing checks and refcount logic is now really solid and > > completely paranoid with self-checks, and it took about 10 iterations to > > get there in a mostly bug-free manner. It looks a bit like ddi pll sharing > > is on track to duplicate that, so merging them would be benificial. It > > might also help the state pre-computation stuff we still need to do for > > plls. > > I'm aware that's your plan, but I'm not really sure if the advantages > beat the disadvantages. Also, I remember you said you were going to > implement that, so I was waiting. Well there's lots of stuff somewhere on my todo continually falling off the end. So if you have some spare bandwidth just ping to make sure I don't start at the same time. Otherwise I don't mind at all if people steal my todo items ;-) > I had just written a huge list of reasons explaining why I think we > shouldn't do what you suggested, but I erased it because I know I'm > going to get flamed: merging code like this is always better in > theory. > > I also think we should consider doing the other way around: making > IBX/CPT/PPT code follow the HSW implementation model, because the HSW > implementation IMHO looks much simpler and easier to understand. Yeah, it's fairly complex and abstracted since the older code was imo too fragile. Imo the separation between the hw enable/disable code and the refcounting/checking is fairly nice. But it sounds like you disagree, so I really want to hear your reasons and objections. Can you please dig them out again? -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
