On Thu, 14 May 2026, Gustavo Sousa <[email protected]> wrote:
> If we end-up bailing early from intel_bw_init_hw() due to
> !HAS_DISPLAY(display), the call to intel_dram_info() to initialize
> dram_info will be meaningless.  Move the call to be done after that
> check.
>
> Cc: Jani Nikula <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo Sousa <[email protected]>

Reviewed-by: Jani Nikula <[email protected]>

> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_bw.c | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_bw.c 
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_bw.c
> index 9c3a9bbb49f6..7eef693b51ad 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_bw.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_bw.c
> @@ -791,11 +791,13 @@ static unsigned int icl_qgv_bw(struct intel_display 
> *display,
>  
>  void intel_bw_init_hw(struct intel_display *display)
>  {
> -     const struct dram_info *dram_info = intel_dram_info(display);
> +     const struct dram_info *dram_info;
>  
>       if (!HAS_DISPLAY(display))
>               return;
>  
> +     dram_info = intel_dram_info(display);
> +
>       /*
>        * Starting with Xe3p_LPD, the hardware tells us whether memory has ECC
>        * enabled that would impact display bandwidth.  However, so far there

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel

Reply via email to