[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 5/5] drm/i915/psr: Simply PSR computed state

[Souza, Jose]

On Fri, 2018-03-16 at 17:38 -0700, Pandiyan, Dhinakaran wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, 2018-03-16 at 16:30 -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 04:05:01PM -0700, José Roberto de Souza
> > wrote:
> > > Having has_psr and has_psr2 can be ambiguous and also uses one
> > > more
> > > byte than needed(not taking in care struct alignment).
> > > 
> > > Cc: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan at intel.com>
> > > Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza at intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > 
> > > v2: Grouped the 2 bools into one u8 as suggested by Dhinakaran
> > > Pandiyan.
> > > 
> > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h |  3 +--
> > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c | 14 ++++++++------
> > >  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> > > index a215aa78b0be..a7383235f90a 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> > > @@ -807,8 +807,7 @@ struct intel_crtc_state {
> > >  	struct intel_link_m_n dp_m2_n2;
> > >  	bool has_drrs;
> > >  
> > > -	bool has_psr;
> > > -	bool has_psr2;
> > > +	u8 psr;
> 
> /* 0 = disabled, 1 = PSR1, 2 = PSR2 */
> 
> > >  
> > >  	/*
> > >  	 * Frequence the dpll for the port should run at.
> > > Differs from the
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > > index aa4e03f65386..78b5c0c88261 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > > @@ -563,9 +563,11 @@ void intel_psr_compute_config(struct
> > > intel_dp *intel_dp,
> > >  		return;
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > > -	crtc_state->has_psr = true;
> > > -	crtc_state->has_psr2 = intel_psr2_config_valid(intel_dp,
> > > crtc_state);
> > > -	DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Enabling PSR%s\n", crtc_state->has_psr2 ?
> > > "2" : "");
> > > +	if (intel_psr2_config_valid(intel_dp, crtc_state))
> > > +		crtc_state->psr = DP_PSR2_IS_SUPPORTED;
> 
> We can avoid the dependency on an unrelated macro definition if you
> explicitly set it to 1 or 2.

I don't like the idea of using magic numbers, what do you think about
add enum?

> 
> > > +	else
> > > +		crtc_state->psr = DP_PSR_IS_SUPPORTED;
> > > +	DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Enabling PSR%d\n", crtc_state->psr);
> 
> Also I think you should initialize ->psr = 0
> > 
> > Could we still continue writing "PSR" instead of "PSR1" ?
> > 
> > otherwise patch lgtm...
> > 
> > >  }
> > >  
> > >  static void intel_psr_activate(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> > > @@ -635,7 +637,7 @@ void intel_psr_enable(struct intel_dp
> > > *intel_dp,
> > >  	struct drm_device *dev = intel_dig_port->base.base.dev;
> > >  	struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dev);
> > >  
> > > -	if (!crtc_state->has_psr)
> > > +	if (!crtc_state->psr)
> > >  		return;
> > >  
> > >  	if (WARN_ON(!CAN_PSR(dev_priv)))
> > > @@ -648,7 +650,7 @@ void intel_psr_enable(struct intel_dp
> > > *intel_dp,
> > >  		goto unlock;
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > > -	dev_priv->psr.psr2_enabled = crtc_state->has_psr2;
> > > +	dev_priv->psr.psr2_enabled = (crtc_state->psr ==
> > > DP_PSR2_IS_SUPPORTED);
> > >  	dev_priv->psr.busy_frontbuffer_bits = 0;
> > >  
> > >  	dev_priv->psr.setup_vsc(intel_dp, crtc_state);
> > > @@ -770,7 +772,7 @@ void intel_psr_disable(struct intel_dp
> > > *intel_dp,
> > >  	struct drm_device *dev = intel_dig_port->base.base.dev;
> > >  	struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dev);
> > >  
> > > -	if (!old_crtc_state->has_psr)
> > > +	if (!old_crtc_state->psr)
> > >  		return;
> > >  
> > >  	if (WARN_ON(!CAN_PSR(dev_priv)))
> > > -- 
> > > 2.16.2
> > > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Intel-gfx mailing list
> > Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx