[Intel-gfx] [stanislav.lisovskiy at intel.com: Re: [PATCH 4/6] drm/i915: Unconfuse pre-icl vs. icl+ intel_sagv_{pre, post}_plane_update()]
Lisovskiy, Stanislav
stanislav.lisovskiy at intel.com
Mon Feb 14 17:43:42 UTC 2022
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 19:39:28 +0200
From: "Lisovskiy, Stanislav" <stanislav.lisovskiy at intel.com>
To: Ville Syrjala <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
Cc: intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] drm/i915: Unconfuse pre-icl vs. icl+ intel_sagv_{pre,post}_plane_update()
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 11:18:09AM +0200, Ville Syrjala wrote:
> From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
>
> intel_sagv_{pre,post}_plane_update() can accidentally forget
> to bail out early on pre-icl and proceed down the icl+ codepath
> at the end of the function. Fortunately it'll bail out before
> it gets too far due to old_qgv_mask==new_qgv_mask==0 so no real
> bug here. But lets make the code less confusing anyway.
>
> Cc: Stanislav Lisovskiy <stanislav.lisovskiy at intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 10 ++++++----
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> index d8eb553ffad3..068870b17c43 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> @@ -3806,8 +3806,9 @@ void intel_sagv_pre_plane_update(struct intel_atomic_state *state)
> if (!new_bw_state)
> return;
>
> - if (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) < 11 && !intel_can_enable_sagv(dev_priv, new_bw_state)) {
> - intel_disable_sagv(dev_priv);
> + if (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) < 11) {
> + if (!intel_can_enable_sagv(dev_priv, new_bw_state))
> + intel_disable_sagv(dev_priv);
> return;
> }
Reviewed-by: Stanislav Lisovskiy <stanislav.lisovskiy at intel.com>
Agree, I think that was my original code as well. However to be honest, don't like
the whole idea of splitting the code flow and bailing our prematurely for gen < 11 here.
Would be nice to have some unified approach, so that we have common main logic for all platforms,
like
if (intel_bw_state_equals(new, old))
return
intel_bw_state_apply_restrictions(...) -> here we would add intel_enable/disable_sagv for gen <11 and
qgv point restrictions for gen >= 11
Stan
>
> @@ -3857,8 +3858,9 @@ void intel_sagv_post_plane_update(struct intel_atomic_state *state)
> if (!new_bw_state)
> return;
>
> - if (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) < 11 && intel_can_enable_sagv(dev_priv, new_bw_state)) {
> - intel_enable_sagv(dev_priv);
> + if (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) < 11) {
> + if (intel_can_enable_sagv(dev_priv, new_bw_state))
> + intel_enable_sagv(dev_priv);
> return;
> }
>
> --
> 2.34.1
>
----- End forwarded message -----
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list