On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 03:07:05PM +0530, Jindal, Sonika wrote:
>
>
> On 3/16/2015 3:04 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 02:43:19PM +0530, Jindal, Sonika wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 3/12/2015 8:40 PM, ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>> From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>> The source rates don't change, so we can just point the caller at the
> >>> const arrays.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 24 ++++++++++--------------
> >>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> >>> index d638f5e..537f1d0 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> >>> @@ -1157,22 +1157,18 @@ intel_read_sink_rates(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, int *sink_rates)
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> static int
> >>> -intel_read_source_rates(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, int *source_rates)
> >>> +intel_dp_source_rates(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, const int **source_rates)
> >>> {
> >>> struct drm_device *dev = intel_dp_to_dev(intel_dp);
> >>> - int i;
> >>> - int max_default_rate;
> >>>
> >>> - if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen >= 9 && intel_dp->supported_rates[0]) {
> >>> - for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(gen9_rates); ++i)
> >>> - source_rates[i] = gen9_rates[i];
> >>> - } else {
> >>> - /* Index of the max_link_bw supported + 1 */
> >>> - max_default_rate = (intel_dp_max_link_bw(intel_dp) >> 3) + 1;
> >>> - for (i = 0; i < max_default_rate; ++i)
> >>> - source_rates[i] = default_rates[i];
> >>> + if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen >= 9) {
> >>> + *source_rates = gen9_rates;
> >>> + return ARRAY_SIZE(gen9_rates);
> >>> }
> >>> - return i;
> >>> +
> >>> + *source_rates = default_rates;
> >>> +
> >>> + return (intel_dp_max_link_bw(intel_dp) >> 3) + 1;
> >> Now when intel_dp_max_link_bw doesn't do much, can this be simply
> >> ARRAY_SIZE(default_rates)? and we can get away with this function.
> >
> > If you'll look at patch 6 you'll see me moving the source limitations
> > from intel_dp_max_link_bw() to intel_dp_source_rates().
> >
> Yes, thats why I think we can remove the intel_dp_max_link_bw function
> altogether.
We still need it to limit the sink rates appropriately when
SUPPORTED_LINK_RATES is not present.
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> static void
> >>> @@ -1269,12 +1265,12 @@ intel_dp_compute_config(struct intel_encoder *encoder,
> >>> int link_avail, link_clock;
> >>> int sink_rates[8];
> >>> int supported_rates[8] = {0};
> >>> - int source_rates[8];
> >>> + const int *source_rates;
> >>> int source_len, sink_len, supported_len;
> >>>
> >>> sink_len = intel_read_sink_rates(intel_dp, sink_rates);
> >>>
> >>> - source_len = intel_read_source_rates(intel_dp, source_rates);
> >>> + source_len = intel_dp_source_rates(intel_dp, &source_rates);
> >>>
> >>> supported_len = intel_supported_rates(source_rates, source_len,
> >>> sink_rates, sink_len, supported_rates);
> >>>
> >
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
