[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v28 3/6] drm/i915: Make active_pipes check skl specific

[Ville Syrjälä]

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 04:26:53PM +0300, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 04:14:33PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 03:44:06PM +0300, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 02:39:25PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 05:45:00PM +0300, Stanislav Lisovskiy wrote:
> > > > > Seems that only skl needs to have SAGV turned off
> > > > > for multipipe scenarios, so lets do it this way.
> > > > 
> > > > It doesn't afaics. It's just someone added the check for some random
> > > > reason. So this should be reworded a bit. Also this isn't just about
> > > > skl/derivatives but all pre-icl so the <subject> is a bit misleading too.
> > > 
> > > This is in BSpec anyway. And it was in the code before, so I really 
> > > don't get what do you mean here.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > If anything blows up - we can always revert this patch.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Lisovskiy <stanislav.lisovskiy at intel.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 15 +++++++++------
> > > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.h |  3 ++-
> > > > >  2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> > > > > index 3dc1ad66beb3..db188efee21e 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> > > > > @@ -3777,7 +3777,7 @@ void intel_sagv_pre_plane_update(struct intel_atomic_state *state)
> > > > >  	if (!new_bw_state)
> > > > >  		return;
> > > > >  
> > > > > -	if (!intel_can_enable_sagv(new_bw_state))
> > > > > +	if (!intel_can_enable_sagv(dev_priv, new_bw_state))
> > > > >  		intel_disable_sagv(dev_priv);
> > > > >  }
> > > > >  
> > > > > @@ -3800,7 +3800,7 @@ void intel_sagv_post_plane_update(struct intel_atomic_state *state)
> > > > >  	if (!new_bw_state)
> > > > >  		return;
> > > > >  
> > > > > -	if (intel_can_enable_sagv(new_bw_state))
> > > > > +	if (intel_can_enable_sagv(dev_priv, new_bw_state))
> > > > >  		intel_enable_sagv(dev_priv);
> > > > >  }
> > > > >  
> > > > > @@ -3853,16 +3853,19 @@ static bool skl_crtc_can_enable_sagv(const struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state)
> > > > >  	return true;
> > > > >  }
> > > > >  
> > > > > -bool intel_can_enable_sagv(const struct intel_bw_state *bw_state)
> > > > > +bool intel_can_enable_sagv(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > > > > +			   const struct intel_bw_state *bw_state)
> > > > >  {
> > > > > -	if (bw_state->active_pipes && !is_power_of_2(bw_state->active_pipes))
> > > > > -		return false;
> > > > > +	if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) < 11)
> > > > > +		if (bw_state->active_pipes && !is_power_of_2(bw_state->active_pipes))
> > > > 
> > > > If (a && b && c)
> > > > 	return false;
> > > 
> > > Then the line would get too long, and it does exactly same thing.
> > > I really don't understand such comments.
> > 
> > if (a && b &&
> >     c)
> > 
> > if (a &&
> >     b && c)
> > 
> > if (a &&
> >     b &&
> >     c)
> > 
> > there are plenty of options. The point is nested ifs like this
> > only serve to indent code needlessly deep.
> 
> and ifs like if (long condition1 && long condition2 && ...) make 
> unnecessary "wide". 
> 
> I would understand of course if I would do something like
> 3-4 nested ifs sure, however that one seems to be completely similar.
> 
> I don't even get why 
> 
> if (a &&
>     b && c)

"if a and b and c then do stuff"

> 
> reads better than
> 
> if (a)
>    if(b && c)

"if a then if b and c then do stuff"

The first one definitely sounds better to my ears. Not sure
the second one can even be called English.

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel