On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 01:45:37PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 05:00:14PM +0530, Vandana Kannan wrote: > > Please let me know your inputs on this.. > > Given that making changes to avoid DRRS related checks in > > pipe_config_compare affects the overall design and future > > implementations related to RR switching, I think that using a quirk for > > downclock_mode to compare dp_m_n and dp_m2_n2 based on the RR in use, > > > > if (!low RR) > > compare dp_m_n > > else > > compare dp_m2_n2 > > > > would avoid unrelated DRRS checks and make sure extension of DRRS > > implementation would be possible. > > Only thing would be that both dp_m_n and dp_m2_n2 cant be compared always.. > > Well my idea was for bdw we'd check that > > hw.dp_m_n == sw.dp_m_n || hw.dp_m_n == sw.dp_m2_n2 > > without any checks using software state to figure out whether we're in low > RR mode or not. That way the pipe config checker only depends upon the 2 > pipe configs, which is a nice proper for it to have. Also we might need to do fbc/psr frobbing after flips and those again would be easier from process contexts. At least I expect less fuzz if we can wrap up fbc/psr state in a mutex instead of careful spinlock/irqsave spinlock trickery. -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
