On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 01:40:29PM +0100, Damien Lespiau wrote: > On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 03:24:45PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 06:21:35PM +0100, Damien Lespiau wrote: > > > Signed-off-by: Damien Lespiau <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 4 ++++ > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > > index a232dc9..a018465 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > > @@ -5627,6 +5627,10 @@ static void skl_set_cdclk(struct drm_i915_private > > > *dev_priv, unsigned int freq) > > > mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->rps.hw_lock); > > > > > > intel_update_cdclk(dev); > > > + > > > + WARN(freq != dev_priv->cdclk_freq, > > > + "cdclk requested %d kHz but got %d kHz\n", > > > + freq, dev_priv->cdclk_freq); > > > } > > > > Could you add this to all the set_cdclk() functions? Maybe > > intel_check_cdclk() or something. > > I was thinking that we should probably introduce a low level > set_core_display_clock() vfunc and a intel_set_core_display_clock() > wrapper were we'd put the common code (updating the cached value, that > WARN(), ...) > > Thoughts?
Yeah wrapper around the vfunc sounds better than sprinkling the same stuff into every vfunc. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
