On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:55:58AM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 13:37:53 +0300 > ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > If someone is interested in the current cdclk frquency it should > > be stable and not in process of changing frquency. Warn if the current > > and requested cdclk don't match in .get_display_clock_spee() on vlv. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 4 ++++ > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > index 29dddec..601e97e 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > @@ -5234,6 +5234,10 @@ static int valleyview_get_display_clock_speed(struct drm_device *dev) > > > > divider = val & DISPLAY_FREQUENCY_VALUES; > > > > + WARN((val & DISPLAY_FREQUENCY_STATUS) != > > + (divider << DISPLAY_FREQUENCY_STATUS_SHIFT), > > + "cdclk change in progress\n"); > > + > > return DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(vco << 1, divider + 1); > > } > > > > Hm, there's not much we can do in this case, so rather than warn maybe > we should try a wait instead, and only warn if it times out? Even then > there's not much we can do aside from poking the PUnit folks. This shouldn't happen unless we somehow messed up and triggered a cdclk change and didn't wait for it to complete, which would be a driver bug. So I think a simple WARN seems sufficient. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
