diff options
| author | Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> | 2020-02-28 23:35:49 +0300 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> | 2020-03-05 16:53:33 +0300 |
| commit | e7f54e6c198159ff593f1d52707d40a82899cfc7 (patch) | |
| tree | 9de1552b730f41318ac1be8f562a5f78c95695ea /drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | |
| parent | 9b11bbf0c4008fa0b715ed68db0d5669175413c5 (diff) | |
| download | linux-e7f54e6c198159ff593f1d52707d40a82899cfc7.tar.xz | |
drm/i915: Don't check uv_wm in skl_plane_wm_equals()
The hardware never sees the uv_wm values (apart from
uv_wm.min_ddb_alloc affecting the ddb allocation). Thus there
is no point in comparing uv_wm to determine if we need to
reprogram the watermark registers. So let's check only the
rgb/y watermark in skl_plane_wm_equals(). But let's leave
a comment behind so that the next person reading this doesn't
get as confused as I did when I added this check.
If the ddb allocation ends up changing due to uv_wm
skl_ddb_add_affected_planes() takes care of adding the plane
to the state.
TODO: we should perhaps just eliminate uv_wm from the state
and simply track the min_ddb_alloc for uv instead.
Cc: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20200228203552.30273-1-ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com
Reviewed-by: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@intel.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c')
| -rw-r--r-- | drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 8 |
1 files changed, 6 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c index 26572364f893..43c8081ff051 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c @@ -5404,8 +5404,12 @@ static bool skl_plane_wm_equals(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, int level, max_level = ilk_wm_max_level(dev_priv); for (level = 0; level <= max_level; level++) { - if (!skl_wm_level_equals(&wm1->wm[level], &wm2->wm[level]) || - !skl_wm_level_equals(&wm1->uv_wm[level], &wm2->uv_wm[level])) + /* + * We don't check uv_wm as the hardware doesn't actually + * use it. It only gets used for calculating the required + * ddb allocation. + */ + if (!skl_wm_level_equals(&wm1->wm[level], &wm2->wm[level])) return false; } |