On Wed, 2026-09-02 at 11:41 +0300, Hogander, Jouni wrote: > On Tue, 2026-08-25 at 11:15 +0530, Animesh Manna wrote: > > Add support for half LFPS cycle calculation for DP2.1 ALPM as > > dependent > > parameters got changed. > > > > v1: Initial version. > > v2: Avoid returning early. [Jani] > > v3: Use intel_crtc_has_type(). [Suraj] > > > > Cc: Jouni Högander <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Animesh Manna <[email protected]> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_alpm.c | 18 ++++++++++++------ > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_alpm.c > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_alpm.c > > index 078e04bb69d2..98aa418a6ff7 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_alpm.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_alpm.c > > @@ -80,12 +80,18 @@ static int get_silence_period_symbols(const > > struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state) > > static void get_lfps_cycle_min_max_time(const struct > > intel_crtc_state *crtc_state, > > Not your patch, but maybe better naming would be > get_lfps_period_min_max_time() > > > int *min, int *max) > > { > > - if (crtc_state->port_clock < 540000) { > > - *min = 65 * LFPS_CYCLE_COUNT; > > - *max = 75 * LFPS_CYCLE_COUNT; > > - } else { > > - *min = 140; > > - *max = 800; > > + struct intel_display *display = > > to_intel_display(crtc_state); > > + > > + *min = 320; > > + *max = 1600; > > + if (intel_crtc_has_type(crtc_state, INTEL_OUTPUT_EDP)) { > > + if (crtc_state->port_clock < 540000 && > > DISPLAY_VER(display) < 35) { > > + *min = 65 * LFPS_CYCLE_COUNT; > > + *max = 75 * LFPS_CYCLE_COUNT; > > + } else { > > + *min = 140; > > + *max = 800; > > + } > > This is getting messy. Maybe it would be more clear to have: > > if (DISPLAY_VER(display) < 35) > get_lfps_cycle_min_max_time_cx0() > else > get_lfps_cycle_min_max_time_lt()
HAS_LT_PHY(display) would be better to use than display version. BR, Jouni Högander > > BR, > Jouni Högander > > } > > } > > >
