[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 3/3] drm/i915: Mark FBC B gone if pipe B is gone

[Luca Coelho]

On Fri, 2022-09-16 at 19:52 +0300, Ville Syrjala wrote:
> From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> 
> If pipe B is fused off we also shouldn't have FBC B.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c
> index 1434dc33cf49..fbefebc023f1 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c
> @@ -394,6 +394,7 @@ void intel_device_info_runtime_init(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>  		if (dfsm & SKL_DFSM_PIPE_B_DISABLE) {
>  			runtime->pipe_mask &= ~BIT(PIPE_B);
>  			runtime->cpu_transcoder_mask &= ~BIT(TRANSCODER_B);
> +			runtime->fbc_mask &= ~BIT(INTEL_FBC_B);
>  		}
>  		if (dfsm & SKL_DFSM_PIPE_C_DISABLE) {
>  			runtime->pipe_mask &= ~BIT(PIPE_C);

I don't know (yet) what exactly this does, but it makes sense if you
think of consistency: we already do that for PIPE_A.

But what about PIPE_C and PIPE_D? Wouldn't it make sense to do the same
thing for them as well?

--
Cheers,
Luca.