On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 01:16:18PM +0530, Thulasimani, Sivakumar wrote: > > > On 2/9/2016 12:02 PM, Jani Nikula wrote: > > On Tue, 09 Feb 2016, "Thulasimani, Sivakumar" > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 2/5/2016 4:59 PM, Mika Kahola wrote: > >>> Skip DDI PLL selection if display type is DSI/MIPI. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Mika Kahola <[email protected]> > >>> --- > >>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 9 +++++++-- > >>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > >>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > >>> index d7de2a5..5da98b2 100644 > >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > >>> @@ -9902,8 +9902,13 @@ static void broadwell_modeset_commit_cdclk(struct > >>> drm_atomic_state *old_state) > >>> static int haswell_crtc_compute_clock(struct intel_crtc *crtc, > >>> struct intel_crtc_state > >>> *crtc_state) > >>> { > >>> - if (!intel_ddi_pll_select(crtc, crtc_state)) > >>> - return -EINVAL; > >>> + struct intel_encoder *intel_encoder = > >>> + intel_ddi_get_crtc_new_encoder(crtc_state); > >>> + > >>> + if (intel_encoder->type != INTEL_OUTPUT_DSI) { > >>> + if (!intel_ddi_pll_select(crtc, crtc_state)) > >>> + return -EINVAL; > >>> + } > >>> > >> can this be moved inside bxt_ddi_pll_select ? we can avoid this check for > >> other platforms that also execute this function. > > I asked Mika to do it this way, but if you feel strongly about it I > > guess I could be persuaded otherwise too. > > > > My main point is, if we pass on DSI encoders to DDI functions in some > > cases but mostly not, it will muddy the waters and eventually people end > > up checking for "is dsi" all around DDI just because they can't be > > bothered to check if the functions are really called for DDI only or > > not. It's more of a maintainability concern than anything else. > > > > BR, > > Jani. > > > i am fine with this either way. i was thinking of avoid such checks > in other platforms where it is not needed but your concern of > too many is_dsi checks is valid as well. > with that i am fine with this change as is. > Reviewed-by: Sivakumar Thulasimani <[email protected]>
Another idea would be to use the clock_set thing to skip it, but I think historically that has only been used to skip the PLL calculations, not the PLL selection. So might be it would just confuse things more. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
