| Message ID | 1438344840-3490-10-git-send-email-mika.kahola@intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 03:13:58PM +0300, Mika Kahola wrote: > It is possible the we request to have a mode that has > higher pixel clock than our HW can support. This patch > checks if requested pixel clock is lower than the one > supported by the HW. The requested mode is discarded > if we cannot support the requested pixel clock. > > This patch applies to DisplayPort MST. > > V2: > - removed computation for max pixel clock > > V3: > - cleanup by removing unnecessary lines > > Signed-off-by: Mika Kahola <mika.kahola@intel.com> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp_mst.c | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp_mst.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp_mst.c > index 585f0a4..fcf03d0 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp_mst.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp_mst.c > @@ -347,6 +347,8 @@ static enum drm_mode_status > intel_dp_mst_mode_valid(struct drm_connector *connector, > struct drm_display_mode *mode) > { > + int max_pixclk = to_i915(connector->dev)->max_dotclk; The pixclk vs. dotclk in every patch is tickling my ocd nerves. I'd say pick one and stick to it everywhere. I guess I'm probably to blame here since I've been using dotclock in the .get_config() paths, and pixclk in the cdclk calculations. With grep I can't say which one is winning, so I guess you could pick whichever seems more awesome. Apart from that this patch looks good so: Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> > + > /* TODO - validate mode against available PBN for link */ > if (mode->clock < 10000) > return MODE_CLOCK_LOW; > @@ -354,6 +356,9 @@ intel_dp_mst_mode_valid(struct drm_connector *connector, > if (mode->flags & DRM_MODE_FLAG_DBLCLK) > return MODE_H_ILLEGAL; > > + if (mode->clock > max_pixclk) > + return MODE_CLOCK_HIGH; > + > return MODE_OK; > } > > -- > 1.9.1 > > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 09:49:12PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 03:13:58PM +0300, Mika Kahola wrote: > > It is possible the we request to have a mode that has > > higher pixel clock than our HW can support. This patch > > checks if requested pixel clock is lower than the one > > supported by the HW. The requested mode is discarded > > if we cannot support the requested pixel clock. > > > > This patch applies to DisplayPort MST. > > > > V2: > > - removed computation for max pixel clock > > > > V3: > > - cleanup by removing unnecessary lines > > > > Signed-off-by: Mika Kahola <mika.kahola@intel.com> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp_mst.c | 5 +++++ > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp_mst.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp_mst.c > > index 585f0a4..fcf03d0 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp_mst.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp_mst.c > > @@ -347,6 +347,8 @@ static enum drm_mode_status > > intel_dp_mst_mode_valid(struct drm_connector *connector, > > struct drm_display_mode *mode) > > { > > + int max_pixclk = to_i915(connector->dev)->max_dotclk; > > The pixclk vs. dotclk in every patch is tickling my ocd nerves. I'd say > pick one and stick to it everywhere. I guess I'm probably to blame here > since I've been using dotclock in the .get_config() paths, and pixclk > in the cdclk calculations. With grep I can't say which one is winning, > so I guess you could pick whichever seems more awesome. +1 from me for a follow-up series to standardize on one and then maybe even add a small DOC: kerneldoc comment explaining what all the different clocks are that we have. We have much improved kerneldoc support now. -Daniel > > Apart from that this patch looks good so: > Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> > > > + > > /* TODO - validate mode against available PBN for link */ > > if (mode->clock < 10000) > > return MODE_CLOCK_LOW; > > @@ -354,6 +356,9 @@ intel_dp_mst_mode_valid(struct drm_connector *connector, > > if (mode->flags & DRM_MODE_FLAG_DBLCLK) > > return MODE_H_ILLEGAL; > > > > + if (mode->clock > max_pixclk) > > + return MODE_CLOCK_HIGH; > > + > > return MODE_OK; > > } > > > > -- > > 1.9.1 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Intel-gfx mailing list > > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx > > -- > Ville Syrjälä > Intel OTC > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp_mst.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp_mst.c index 585f0a4..fcf03d0 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp_mst.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp_mst.c @@ -347,6 +347,8 @@ static enum drm_mode_status intel_dp_mst_mode_valid(struct drm_connector *connector, struct drm_display_mode *mode) { + int max_pixclk = to_i915(connector->dev)->max_dotclk; + /* TODO - validate mode against available PBN for link */ if (mode->clock < 10000) return MODE_CLOCK_LOW; @@ -354,6 +356,9 @@ intel_dp_mst_mode_valid(struct drm_connector *connector, if (mode->flags & DRM_MODE_FLAG_DBLCLK) return MODE_H_ILLEGAL; + if (mode->clock > max_pixclk) + return MODE_CLOCK_HIGH; + return MODE_OK; }
It is possible the we request to have a mode that has higher pixel clock than our HW can support. This patch checks if requested pixel clock is lower than the one supported by the HW. The requested mode is discarded if we cannot support the requested pixel clock. This patch applies to DisplayPort MST. V2: - removed computation for max pixel clock V3: - cleanup by removing unnecessary lines Signed-off-by: Mika Kahola <mika.kahola@intel.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp_mst.c | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)