[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 12/17] drm/i915: Update intel_dp_compute_config() to handle compliance test requests

[Clint Taylor]

On 12/17/2014 09:04 AM, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> 2014-12-10 21:53 GMT-02:00 Todd Previte <tprevite at gmail.com>:
>> Adds provisions in intel_dp_compute_config() to accommodate compliance
>> testing. Mostly this invovles circumventing the automatic link configuration
>> parameters and allowing the compliance code to set those parameters as
>> required by the tests.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Todd Previte <tprevite at gmail.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
>> index 2a13124..4a55ca6 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
>> @@ -1189,6 +1189,21 @@ intel_dp_compute_config(struct intel_encoder *encoder,
>>          pipe_config->has_drrs = false;
>>          pipe_config->has_audio = intel_dp->has_audio;
>>
>> +       /* Compliance testing should skip most of this function */
>> +       if (!is_edp(intel_dp) && intel_dp->compliance_testing_active) {
>
> I couldn't find any patch on your series that flips
> intel_dp->compliance_testing_active to true, which is weird since it
> would prevent us from testing the code.
>
> Also, if we can make sure that we never set compliance_testing_active
> to true on eDP, we can remove the is_edp() check.

Why would we not allow automation compliance testing on eDP? There are 
automation tests and fixtures from Unigraf and Agilent for eDP.

-Clint

>
>> +               bpp = intel_dp->compliance_config.bits_per_pixel;
>> +               lane_count = intel_dp->compliance_config.lane_count;
>> +               clock = intel_dp->compliance_config.link_rate >> 3;
>> +               /* Assign here and skip at the end - ensures correct values */
>> +               intel_dp->link_bw = bws[clock];
>> +               intel_dp->lane_count = lane_count;
>> +               pipe_config->pipe_bpp = bpp;
>> +               pipe_config->port_clock =
>> +                       drm_dp_bw_code_to_link_rate(intel_dp->link_bw);
>> +
>> +               goto compliance_exit;
>> +       }
>> +
>>          if (is_edp(intel_dp) && intel_connector->panel.fixed_mode) {
>>                  intel_fixed_panel_mode(intel_connector->panel.fixed_mode,
>>                                         adjusted_mode);
>> @@ -1275,6 +1290,7 @@ found:
>>          DRM_DEBUG_KMS("DP link bw required %i available %i\n",
>>                        mode_rate, link_avail);
>>
>> +compliance_exit:
>
> Don't we need to move the color range adjustments to this point?
>
>>          intel_link_compute_m_n(bpp, lane_count,
>>                                 adjusted_mode->crtc_clock,
>>                                 pipe_config->port_clock,
>> --
>> 1.9.1
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Intel-gfx mailing list
>> Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
>
>
>