On Thu, 20 Nov 2025, Imre Deak <[email protected]> wrote:
> USe intel_port_to_tc() in mtl_port_to_pll_id(), instead of open coding
> the same.

Patch 1 just open coded it. Why have this back and forth instead of
starting off with patch 2 that directly fixes the issue? It's not like
we need to backport any of this anywhere.

BR,
Jani.

>
> Cc: Suraj Kandpal <[email protected]>
> Cc: Mika Kahola <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Imre Deak <[email protected]>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dpll_mgr.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dpll_mgr.c 
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dpll_mgr.c
> index 8ae8cc7ad79d3..e0e5e5f65d193 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dpll_mgr.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dpll_mgr.c
> @@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ enum intel_dpll_id icl_tc_port_to_pll_id(enum tc_port 
> tc_port)
>  enum intel_dpll_id mtl_port_to_pll_id(struct intel_display *display, enum 
> port port)
>  {
>       if (port >= PORT_TC1)
> -             return icl_tc_port_to_pll_id(port - PORT_TC1 + TC_PORT_1);
> +             return icl_tc_port_to_pll_id(intel_port_to_tc(display, port));
>  
>       switch (port) {
>       case PORT_A:

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel

Reply via email to