Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 11/12] drm/i915: Keep track of the cdclk as if all crtc's were active.

On Thu, 2015-11-19 at 16:07 +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > On skylake when calculating plane visibility with the crtc in > dpms off mode the real cdclk may be different from what it would be > if the crtc was active. This may result in a WARN_ON(cdclk < crtc_clock) > from skl_max_scale. The fix

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 11/12] drm/i915: Keep track of the cdclk as if all crtc's were active.

On Thu, 2015-11-26 at 15:31 +0200, Ander Conselvan De Oliveira wrote: > On Thu, 2015-11-19 at 16:07 +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > > On skylake when calculating plane visibility with the crtc in > > dpms off mode the real cdclk may be different from what it would be > > if the crtc was active. T

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 11/12] drm/i915: Keep track of the cdclk as if all crtc's were active.

On Thu, 2015-11-19 at 16:07 +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > On skylake when calculating plane visibility with the crtc in > dpms off mode the real cdclk may be different from what it would be > if the crtc was active. This may result in a WARN_ON(cdclk < crtc_clock) > from skl_max_scale. The fix

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 11/12] drm/i915: Keep track of the cdclk as if all crtc's were active.

On skylake when calculating plane visibility with the crtc in dpms off mode the real cdclk may be different from what it would be if the crtc was active. This may result in a WARN_ON(cdclk < crtc_clock) from skl_max_scale. The fix is to keep a atomic_cdclk that would be true if all crtc's were acti