2015-12-07 18:28 GMT-02:00 <abhay.kumar@xxxxxxxxx>: > From: Abhay Kumar <abhay.kumar@xxxxxxxxx> > > Moving 250ms from T12 timing to suspend path so that > resume path will be faster. Can you please elaborate more on your motivation for this patch? I'm a little confused. You're trying to make resume faster by making suspend slower? What are your main arguments for this? > > Signed-off-by: Abhay Kumar <abhay.kumar@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c | 6 ++++++ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c > index 7f618cf..2679c9e 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c > @@ -2389,6 +2389,12 @@ static void intel_ddi_post_disable(struct intel_encoder *intel_encoder) Funcion intel_ddi_post_disable() doesn't only run on suspend situations, yet your commit message suggests you're optimizing suspend. Maybe this commit makes non-suspend modesets slower because now we need to wait the panel power cycle earlier? Have you measured the possible downsides? > intel_dp_sink_dpms(intel_dp, DRM_MODE_DPMS_OFF); > intel_edp_panel_vdd_on(intel_dp); > intel_edp_panel_off(intel_dp); > + > + /* Give additional delay of 250 ms so that resume time will > + be faster and also meets T12 delay. > + */ The comment says 250ms, but the code doesn't. Also, there's a missing '*' char in the comment. > + wait_remaining_ms_from_jiffies(intel_dp->last_power_cycle, > + (intel_dp->panel_power_cycle_delay/2)); Why wait half the panel power cycle? Why did you choose exactly this value? Thanks, Paulo > } > > if (IS_SKYLAKE(dev) || IS_KABYLAKE(dev)) > -- > 1.9.1 > > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx -- Paulo Zanoni _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
