On 2022-05-02 10:27, Modem, Bhanuprakash wrote:
> On Mon-02-05-2022 07:08 pm, Harry Wentland wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2022-05-02 09:28, Modem, Bhanuprakash wrote:
>>> On Fri-29-04-2022 08:02 pm, Murthy, Arun R wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Intel-gfx <[email protected]> On Behalf Of
>>>>> Bhanuprakash Modem
>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2022 3:21 PM
>>>>> To: [email protected]; [email protected];
>>>>> amd-
>>>>> [email protected]; [email protected];
>>>>> [email protected]; [email protected]; Sharma, Swati2
>>>>> <[email protected]>
>>>>> Cc: Rodrigo Siqueira <[email protected]>
>>>>> Subject: [Intel-gfx] [V2 3/3] drm/amd/display: Move connector
>>>>> debugfs to
>>>>> drm
>>>>>
>>>>> As drm_connector already have the display_info, instead of creating
>>>>> "output_bpc" debugfs in vendor specific driver, move the logic to the
>>>>> drm
>>>>> layer.
>>>>>
>>>>> This patch will also move "Current" bpc to the crtc debugfs from
>>>>> connector
>>>>> debugfs, since we are getting this info from crtc_state.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cc: Harry Wentland <[email protected]>
>>>>> Cc: Rodrigo Siqueira <[email protected]>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bhanuprakash Modem <[email protected]>
>>>>> Reported-by: kernel test robot <[email protected]>
>>>>> ---
>>>> Reviewed-by: Arun R Murthy <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> Thanks Arun,
>>>
>>> @Harry/@Rodrigo, If this change sounds good to you, can you please help
>>> to push it?
>>>
>>
>> This changes the output_bpc debugfs behavior on amdgpu and breaks
>> the amd_max_bpc IGT test. I don't think we should merge this as-is.
>
> Yeah, I have floated the IGT changes to support this series:
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpatchwork.freedesktop.org%2Fseries%2F102387%2F&data=05%7C01%7Charry.wentland%40amd.com%7C61d4e4a755a5449ec58308da2c47dd89%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637870984414230229%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=kge5PgzzX81hsFLBKyPfyv7vQpb1Gse72FWuiGtyoAQ%3D&reserved=0
>
>
> With this IGT change, we can merge this series as-is. I would like to
> request you to review IGT patches too.
>
>>
>> This patch also seems dependent on patch 1 of the series. Shouldn't
>> they be merged together (please don't merge them as-is, though)?
>
> Yes, as other patches in this series are already reviewed, I think we
> need to plan to merge all patches in this series together (If above IGT
> & this patch looks good to you).
>
Thanks for the context again and apologies I haven't had the time to
have a closer look so far. I'll go over these and the IGT patches today
and get back to you.
Harry
> - Bhanu
>
>>
>> Harry
>>
>>> - Bhanu
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks and Regards,
>>>> Arun R Murthy
>>>> --------------------
>>>
>
