On 10/21/2025 12:20 AM, Ville Syrjala wrote:
From: Ville Syrjälä <[email protected]>
The coment in intel_vrr_extra_vblank_delay() is a bit outdated now
that we generally got rid of the "vblank delay" stuff. Update the
comment to better describe the current state of things.
Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Ankit Nautiyal <[email protected]>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vrr.c | 6 ++----
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vrr.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vrr.c
index 8875e5fe86aa..c28491b9002a 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vrr.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vrr.c
@@ -87,10 +87,8 @@ static int intel_vrr_extra_vblank_delay(struct intel_display
*display)
/*
* On ICL/TGL VRR hardware inserts one extra scanline
* just after vactive, which pushes the vmin decision
- * boundary ahead accordingly. We'll include the extra
- * scanline in our vblank delay estimates to make sure
- * that we never underestimate how long we have until
- * the delayed vblank has passed.
+ * boundary ahead accordingly, and thus reduces the
+ * max guardband length by one scanline.
*/
return DISPLAY_VER(display) < 13 ? 1 : 0;
}
