On Fri, 2018-12-21 at 19:14 +0200, Ville Syrjala wrote: > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com> > > I thought we could remove all the early latency==0 checks > and rely on skl_wm_method{1,2}() checking for it. But > skl_compute_plane_wm() applies a bunch of workarounds to bump > up the latency before calling those guys so clearly it won't > end up doing the right thing. Also not sure if the calculations > based on the method1/2 results are safe agaisnt overflows so > it might not work all that well in any case. Let's put the > early check back. > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c > index d132ef10fa60..0aac7e7b660f 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c > @@ -4701,6 +4701,9 @@ static void skl_compute_plane_wm(const struct > intel_crtc_state *cstate, > to_intel_atomic_state(cstate->base.state); > bool apply_memory_bw_wa = skl_needs_memory_bw_wa(state); > > + if (latency == 0) > + return; > + > /* Display WA #1141: kbl,cfl */ > if ((IS_KABYLAKE(dev_priv) || IS_COFFEELAKE(dev_priv) || > IS_CNL_REVID(dev_priv, CNL_REVID_A0, CNL_REVID_B0)) &&
Reviewed-by: Stanislav Lisovskiy <stanislav.lisovs...@intel.com> -- Best Regards, Lisovskiy Stanislav _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx