On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 03:23:50PM +0300, Stanislav Lisovskiy wrote: > We need to calculate cdclk after watermarks/ddb has been calculated > as with recent hw CDCLK needs to be adjusted accordingly to DBuf > requirements, which is not possible with current code organization. > > Setting CDCLK according to DBuf BW requirements and not just rejecting > if it doesn't satisfy BW requirements, will allow us to save power when > it is possible and gain additional bandwidth when it's needed - i.e > boosting both our power management and perfomance capabilities. > > This patch is preparation for that, first we now extract modeset > calculation from modeset checks, in order to call it after wm/ddb > has been calculated. > > v2: - Extract only intel_modeset_calc_cdclk from intel_modeset_checks > (Ville Syrjälä) > > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Lisovskiy <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c | 18 ++++++++++-------- > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c > index 7c45d676c9b7..17d83f37f49f 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c > @@ -14545,10 +14545,6 @@ static int intel_modeset_checks(struct > intel_atomic_state *state) > return ret; > } > > - ret = intel_modeset_calc_cdclk(state); > - if (ret) > - return ret; > - > intel_modeset_clear_plls(state); > > if (IS_HASWELL(dev_priv)) > @@ -14882,10 +14878,6 @@ static int intel_atomic_check(struct drm_device *dev, > goto fail; > } > > - ret = intel_atomic_check_crtcs(state); > - if (ret) > - goto fail; > - > intel_fbc_choose_crtc(dev_priv, state); > ret = calc_watermark_data(state); > if (ret) > @@ -14895,6 +14887,16 @@ static int intel_atomic_check(struct drm_device *dev, > if (ret) > goto fail; > > + if (any_ms) { > + ret = intel_modeset_calc_cdclk(state); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + } > + > + ret = intel_atomic_check_crtcs(state); > + if (ret) > + goto fail;
I was thinking we'd do this as two patches. One with just the extraction, and another one with the bigger reordering. But I think I convinced myself that it should be safe, so maybe a single patch is fine. Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <[email protected]> > + > for_each_oldnew_intel_crtc_in_state(state, crtc, old_crtc_state, > new_crtc_state, i) { > if (!needs_modeset(new_crtc_state) && > -- > 2.24.1.485.gad05a3d8e5 -- Ville Syrjälä Intel _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
