[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v6 02/11] drm/i915: Remove hw.mode

[Navare, Manasi]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 01:19:15PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 02:01:25PM -0700, Navare, Manasi wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 09:52:57PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 11:32:48AM -0700, Navare, Manasi wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 03:35:23PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 09:40:44PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 11:04:33AM -0700, Navare, Manasi wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 08:49:44PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 03:42:13PM -0700, Manasi Navare wrote:
> > > > > > > > > From: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst at linux.intel.com>
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > The members in hw.mode can be used from adjusted_mode as well,
> > > > > > > > > use that when available.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Some places that use hw.mode can be converted to use adjusted_mode
> > > > > > > > > as well.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > v2:
> > > > > > > > > * Manual rebase (Manasi)
> > > > > > > > > * remove the use of pipe_mode defined in patch 3 (Manasi)
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > v3:
> > > > > > > > > * Rebase on drm-tip (Manasi)
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Previous review was apparently ignored. Or is there a better version
> > > > > > > > somewhere? If not, this still looks very wrong.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > This was the latest rev that Maarten had in his local tree which he said should address all the review comments.
> > > > > > > What in particular looks wrong or what review comments were unaddressed here?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The dvo/sdvo changes.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I recommend just dropping this patch entirely. It doesn't seem to have
> > > > > anything to do with the bigjoiner anyway.
> > > > 
> > > > So for the dvo/svdo changes, no need to use the adjusted_mode instead keep using hw.mode?
> > > > How about other cleanups like: intel_crtc_copy_hw_to_uapi_state(crtc_state, &mode); and
> > > > static void intel_crtc_copy_hw_to_uapi_state(struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state,
> > > > +					     struct drm_display_mode *user_mode)
> > > > 
> > > > You think we dont need mode as an argument there either?
> > > 
> > > Not in this patch if all the other stuff disappears. No idea if some
> > > later patch might need something like it.
> > 
> > Hi Ville,
> > 
> > So this patch basically removes the hw.mode and just keeps hw.adjusted_mode
> > So no need to remove that? 
> > But basically from this patch onwards we say that there is hw.pipe_mode
> > and hw.adjusted_mode, there is no hw.mode.
> > Are you suggesting keeping hw.mode as well? Would this be replacing hw.pipe_mode then?
> 
> No. hw.mode is the original timings, adjusted_mode is the output timings,
> pipe_mode is the the pipe timings.

So is the suggestion to keep hw.mode so the original timings as well as adjusted_mode and
then have pipe_mode for per pipe timings.
So get rid of this patch meaning do not remove hw.mode?

Manasi

> 
> -- 
> Ville Syrjälä
> Intel