[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 08/18] drm/i915/display13: Handle LPSP for Display 13

[Lucas De Marchi]

On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 11:24:03AM -0800, Matt Roper wrote:
>From: Uma Shankar <uma.shankar at intel.com>
>
>Enable LPSP for Display13 and get the proper power well
>enable check in place. For Display13 it is PW2 which
>need to check for LPSP.
>
>Cc: Anshuman Gupta <anshuman.gupta at intel.com>
>Cc: Animesh Manna <animesh.manna at intel.com>
>Cc: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper at intel.com>
>Suggested-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper at intel.com>
>Signed-off-by: Uma Shankar <uma.shankar at intel.com>
>Signed-off-by: Anshuman Gupta <anshuman.gupta at intel.com>
>Signed-off-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper at intel.com>
>---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_debugfs.c | 7 +++++++
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>
>diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_debugfs.c
>index d62b18d5ecd8..2af7d74d5960 100644
>--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_debugfs.c
>+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_debugfs.c
>@@ -1316,6 +1316,13 @@ static int i915_lpsp_status(struct seq_file *m, void *unused)
>
> 	switch (INTEL_GEN(i915)) {
> 	case 12:
>+		if (HAS_DISPLAY13(i915)) {

does it still make sense to check for gen && HAS_DISPLAY13? Shouldn't we
be checking only by HAS_DISPLAY13(i915) here, outside the switch()?

Lucas De Marchi

>+			LPSP_STATUS(!intel_lpsp_power_well_enabled(i915,
>+								   SKL_DISP_PW_2));
>+			break;
>+		}
>+
>+		fallthrough;
> 	case 11:
> 		LPSP_STATUS(!intel_lpsp_power_well_enabled(i915, ICL_DISP_PW_3));
> 		break;
>-- 
>2.25.4
>
>_______________________________________________
>Intel-gfx mailing list
>Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
>https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx