From 12344bfc22d302d3746f1de6e7b181ae3f719bc6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Ville=20Syrj=C3=A4l=C3=A4?= <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 22:35:49 +0200
Subject: drm/i915: Don't check uv_wm in skl_plane_wm_equals()
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Git-commit: e7f54e6c198159ff593f1d52707d40a82899cfc7
Patch-mainline: v5.7-rc1
References: jsc#SLE-12680, jsc#SLE-12880, jsc#SLE-12882, jsc#SLE-12883, jsc#SLE-13496, jsc#SLE-15322
The hardware never sees the uv_wm values (apart from
uv_wm.min_ddb_alloc affecting the ddb allocation). Thus there
is no point in comparing uv_wm to determine if we need to
reprogram the watermark registers. So let's check only the
rgb/y watermark in skl_plane_wm_equals(). But let's leave
a comment behind so that the next person reading this doesn't
get as confused as I did when I added this check.
If the ddb allocation ends up changing due to uv_wm
skl_ddb_add_affected_planes() takes care of adding the plane
to the state.
TODO: we should perhaps just eliminate uv_wm from the state
and simply track the min_ddb_alloc for uv instead.
Cc: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20200228203552.30273-1-ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com
Reviewed-by: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Patrik Jakobsson <pjakobsson@suse.de>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 8 ++++++--
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
index 26572364f893..43c8081ff051 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
@@ -5404,8 +5404,12 @@ static bool skl_plane_wm_equals(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
int level, max_level = ilk_wm_max_level(dev_priv);
for (level = 0; level <= max_level; level++) {
- if (!skl_wm_level_equals(&wm1->wm[level], &wm2->wm[level]) ||
- !skl_wm_level_equals(&wm1->uv_wm[level], &wm2->uv_wm[level]))
+ /*
+ * We don't check uv_wm as the hardware doesn't actually
+ * use it. It only gets used for calculating the required
+ * ddb allocation.
+ */
+ if (!skl_wm_level_equals(&wm1->wm[level], &wm2->wm[level]))
return false;
}
--
2.28.0