I believe we should use whatever BSpec recommends. If that is not the best behavior and block things out than the spec needs to be updated or a workaround documented there. Art? thoughts? On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Radhakrishna Sripada <radhakrishna.sripada@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The bspec suggests giving cursor planes a fixed allocation of 8 > blocks when running in a multi-CRTC configuration. However we > have found that this small allocation can only accommodate level > 0 watermarks on many platforms, which in turn prevents the > system from entering deeper sleep states. Let's use a slightly > higher allocation of 16 blocks for the cursor to increase our > chances of enabling lower power states. > > Signed-off-by: Radhakrishna Sripada <radhakrishna.sripada@xxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c > index 658a756..a949dac 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c > @@ -2933,7 +2933,8 @@ static unsigned int skl_cursor_allocation(int num_active) > if (num_active == 1) > return 32; > > - return 8; > + /* higher than bspec recommendation (8) */ > + return 16; > } > > static void skl_ddb_entry_init_from_hw(struct skl_ddb_entry *entry, u32 reg) > -- > 1.9.1 > > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx -- Rodrigo Vivi Blog: http://blog.vivi.eng.br _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
