On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 02:25:57AM +0530, Vandana Kannan wrote:
> Add DRRS work function to trigger a switch to low refresh rate when activity
> is detected on screen.
Where is this function used? How can I judge that it does the right
thing?
> Signed-off-by: Vandana Kannan <vandana.kan...@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> index 778dcd0..30b3aa1 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> @@ -4814,20 +4814,38 @@ static void intel_dp_set_drrs_state(struct drm_device
> *dev, int refresh_rate)
> I915_WRITE(reg, val);
> }
>
> + dev_priv->drrs.refresh_rate_type = index;
> +
> + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("eDP Refresh Rate set to : %dHz\n", refresh_rate);
> +}
> +
> +static void intel_edp_drrs_work(struct work_struct *work)
intel_edp_drrs_downclock_work() would be more self-descriptive
> +{
> + struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv =
> + container_of(work, typeof(*dev_priv), drrs.work.work);
> + struct intel_dp *intel_dp = dev_priv->drrs.dp;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&dev_priv->drrs.mutex);
> +
> + if (!intel_dp)
> + goto unlock;
Does dev_priv->drrs.mutex not also protect dev_priv->drrs.dp?
> +
> /*
> - * mutex taken to ensure that there is no race between differnt
> - * drrs calls trying to update refresh rate. This scenario may occur
> - * in future when idleness detection based DRRS in kernel and
> - * possible calls from user space to set differnt RR are made.
> + * The delayed work can race with an invalidate hence we need to
> + * recheck.
> */
This comment no longer applies to all the other callers of
intel_dp_set_drrs_state()? Or did you miss adding the
lockdep_assert_held(&dev_priv->drrs.mutex)?
> - mutex_lock(&dev_priv->drrs.mutex);
> + if (dev_priv->drrs.busy_frontbuffer_bits)
> + goto unlock;
>
> - dev_priv->drrs.refresh_rate_type = index;
> + if (dev_priv->drrs.refresh_rate_type != DRRS_LOW_RR)
> + intel_dp_set_drrs_state(dev_priv->dev,
Would it not be sensible for intel_dp_set_drrs_state() check for the
no-op itself?
> + intel_dp->attached_connector->panel.
> + downclock_mode->vrefresh);
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
