[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: manage PCH PLLs separately from pipes

[Eugeni Dodonov]

On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:59, Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>wrote:

> From: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes at virtuousgeek.org>
>
> PCH PLLs aren't required for outputs on the CPU, so we shouldn't just
> treat them as part of the pipe.
>
> So split the code out and manage PCH PLLs separately, allocating them
> when needed or trying to re-use existing PCH PLL setups when the timings
> match.
>
> v2: add num_pch_pll field to dev_priv (Daniel)
>    don't NULL the pch_pll pointer in disable or DPMS will fail (Jesse)
>    put register offsets in pll struct (Chris)
>
> v3: Decouple enable/disable of PLLs from get/put.
> v4: Track temporary PLL disabling during modeset
>
> Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44309
> Signed-off-by: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes at virtuousgeek.org> (up to v2)
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> (v3+)
>

Chris, Jesse, I also needed the following hunk below in my tree to cope
with Lynx Point. Do you want me to send it as a separate patch or you could
grab it into v5?


> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c      |    4 +
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h      |    4 +
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h      |    6 +-
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_suspend.c  |    2 +-
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c |  276
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c      |    1 +
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h     |   13 +-
>  7 files changed, 225 insertions(+), 81 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
> index 3effcf7..355bd68 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
> +static int intel_pch_pll_init(struct drm_device *dev)
> +{
> +       drm_i915_private_t *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
> +       struct intel_pch_pll *pch_plls;
> +       int i;
>

+ if (dev_priv->num_pch_pll == 0) {
+ DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("No PCH PLL available, skipping initialization\n");
+ return 0;
+ }
+

It would work otherwise, but it would give -ENOMEM which is misleading in
this case I think.

-- 
Eugeni Dodonov
<http://eugeni.dodonov.net/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/attachments/20120420/63ba6b14/attachment.html>