Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 00/12] drm: Put drm_display_mode on diet

2020-02-21 Thread Ville Syrjälä
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 06:16:57PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 06:09:04PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 05:40:31PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 03:42:56PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 00/12] drm: Put drm_display_mode on diet

2020-02-21 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 06:09:04PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 05:40:31PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 03:42:56PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 12:43 PM Ville Syrjälä > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 00/12] drm: Put drm_display_mode on diet

2020-02-21 Thread Ville Syrjälä
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 05:40:31PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 03:42:56PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 12:43 PM Ville Syrjälä > > wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 01:32:29PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > > > > On Thu, 20 Feb 2020, Ville

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 00/12] drm: Put drm_display_mode on diet

2020-02-21 Thread Ville Syrjälä
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 03:42:56PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 12:43 PM Ville Syrjälä > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 01:32:29PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > > > On Thu, 20 Feb 2020, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > > Looks like getting rid of private_flags is going

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 00/12] drm: Put drm_display_mode on diet

2020-02-21 Thread Linus Walleij
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 9:35 PM Ville Syrjala wrote: > drm/exynos: Use mode->clock instead of reverse calculating it from the > vrefresh > drm: Nuke mode->vrefresh I'm sure this is fine. Acked-by: Linus Walleij We need one: either clock or refresh settings, so it does make sense to

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 00/12] drm: Put drm_display_mode on diet

2020-02-21 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 12:43 PM Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 01:32:29PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > > On Thu, 20 Feb 2020, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > Looks like getting rid of private_flags is going to be pretty > > > straightforward. I'll post patches for that once this

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 00/12] drm: Put drm_display_mode on diet

2020-02-21 Thread Ville Syrjälä
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 01:32:29PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Thu, 20 Feb 2020, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > Looks like getting rid of private_flags is going to be pretty > > straightforward. I'll post patches for that once this first series > > lands. > > Going all in on crtc state? I suppose

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 00/12] drm: Put drm_display_mode on diet

2020-02-21 Thread Jani Nikula
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > Looks like getting rid of private_flags is going to be pretty > straightforward. I'll post patches for that once this first series > lands. Going all in on crtc state? I suppose migrating away from private_flags could easily start in i915 before that.

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 00/12] drm: Put drm_display_mode on diet

2020-02-20 Thread Emil Velikov
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 14:28, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 01:21:03PM +, Emil Velikov wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 20:35, Ville Syrjala > > wrote: > > > > > > From: Ville Syrjälä > > > > > > struct drm_display_mode is extremely fat. Put it on diet. > > > > > > Some

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 00/12] drm: Put drm_display_mode on diet

2020-02-20 Thread Ville Syrjälä
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 04:27:59PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 01:21:03PM +, Emil Velikov wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 20:35, Ville Syrjala > > wrote: > > > > > > From: Ville Syrjälä > > > > > > struct drm_display_mode is extremely fat. Put it on diet. > > > >

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 00/12] drm: Put drm_display_mode on diet

2020-02-20 Thread Ville Syrjälä
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 01:21:03PM +, Emil Velikov wrote: > On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 20:35, Ville Syrjala > wrote: > > > > From: Ville Syrjälä > > > > struct drm_display_mode is extremely fat. Put it on diet. > > > > Some stats for the whole series: > > > > 64bit sizeof(struct

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 00/12] drm: Put drm_display_mode on diet

2020-02-20 Thread Emil Velikov
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 20:35, Ville Syrjala wrote: > > From: Ville Syrjälä > > struct drm_display_mode is extremely fat. Put it on diet. > > Some stats for the whole series: > > 64bit sizeof(struct drm_display_mode): > 200 -> 136 bytes (-32%) > > 64bit bloat-o-meter -c drm.ko: > add/remove: 1/0

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 00/12] drm: Put drm_display_mode on diet

2020-02-19 Thread Ville Syrjälä
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 10:35:32PM +0200, Ville Syrjala wrote: > - Eliminate the second list head somehow? I think we could just convert that to a boolean, or even just borrow eg. the one totally free mode->type bit for our internal use to tag the exposed modes. That would in fact get us down to

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 00/12] drm: Put drm_display_mode on diet

2020-02-19 Thread Ville Syrjala
From: Ville Syrjälä struct drm_display_mode is extremely fat. Put it on diet. Some stats for the whole series: 64bit sizeof(struct drm_display_mode): 200 -> 136 bytes (-32%) 64bit bloat-o-meter -c drm.ko: add/remove: 1/0 grow/shrink: 29/47 up/down: 893/-1544 (-651) Function