| Message ID | 1532584957-8174-1-git-send-email-vathsala.nagaraju@intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | drm/i915/psr: Limit psr2 to skl+ | expand |
On Thu, 2018-07-26 at 11:32 +0530, vathsala nagaraju wrote: > From: Vathsala Nagaraju <vathsala.nagaraju@intel.com> > > PSR2 is supported from skl+. > So Limiting it to skl+. We restrict PSR2 to gen9+ in intel_psr_init_dpcd(), avoids a few extra dpcd reads by checking early. > > Cc: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan@intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Vathsala Nagaraju <vathsala.nagaraju@intel.com> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c | 8 +++++--- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c > index 4bd5768..cbbdfd2 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c > @@ -387,7 +387,7 @@ static void hsw_activate_psr1(struct intel_dp > *intel_dp) > I915_WRITE(EDP_PSR_CTL, val); > } > > -static void hsw_activate_psr2(struct intel_dp *intel_dp) > +static void skl_activate_psr2(struct intel_dp *intel_dp) Yeah, skl_ is appropriate here. We should also change the function names to hsw_psr1_activate() and skl_psr2_activate(), it has been annoying me that the activate functions aren't named in the same fashion as psr_{enable, invalidate, flush, disable} > { > struct intel_digital_port *dig_port = > dp_to_dig_port(intel_dp); > struct drm_device *dev = dig_port->base.base.dev; > @@ -516,7 +516,9 @@ void intel_psr_compute_config(struct intel_dp > *intel_dp, > } > > crtc_state->has_psr = true; > - crtc_state->has_psr2 = intel_psr2_config_valid(intel_dp, > crtc_state); > + if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 9) > + crtc_state->has_psr2 = > intel_psr2_config_valid(intel_dp, > + crtc_ > state); > DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Enabling PSR%s\n", crtc_state->has_psr2 ? "2" > : ""); > } > > @@ -534,7 +536,7 @@ static void intel_psr_activate(struct intel_dp > *intel_dp) > > /* psr1 and psr2 are mutually exclusive.*/ > if (dev_priv->psr.psr2_enabled) > - hsw_activate_psr2(intel_dp); > + skl_activate_psr2(intel_dp); > else > hsw_activate_psr1(intel_dp); >
1;5202;0cOn Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 11:47:21PM -0700, Dhinakaran Pandiyan wrote: > On Thu, 2018-07-26 at 11:32 +0530, vathsala nagaraju wrote: > > From: Vathsala Nagaraju <vathsala.nagaraju@intel.com> > > > > PSR2 is supported from skl+. > > So Limiting it to skl+. > > We restrict PSR2 to gen9+ in intel_psr_init_dpcd(), avoids a few extra > dpcd reads by checking early. > > > > > > Cc: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan@intel.com> > > Signed-off-by: Vathsala Nagaraju <vathsala.nagaraju@intel.com> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c | 8 +++++--- > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c > > index 4bd5768..cbbdfd2 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c > > @@ -387,7 +387,7 @@ static void hsw_activate_psr1(struct intel_dp > > *intel_dp) > > I915_WRITE(EDP_PSR_CTL, val); > > } > > > > -static void hsw_activate_psr2(struct intel_dp *intel_dp) > > +static void skl_activate_psr2(struct intel_dp *intel_dp) > > Yeah, skl_ is appropriate here. > > We should also change the function names to hsw_psr1_activate() and > skl_psr2_activate(), it has been annoying me that the activate > functions aren't named in the same fashion as psr_{enable, invalidate, > flush, disable} maybe simply intel_psr1_activate intel_psr2_activate?! > > > > { > > struct intel_digital_port *dig_port = > > dp_to_dig_port(intel_dp); > > struct drm_device *dev = dig_port->base.base.dev; > > @@ -516,7 +516,9 @@ void intel_psr_compute_config(struct intel_dp > > *intel_dp, > > } > > > > crtc_state->has_psr = true; > > - crtc_state->has_psr2 = intel_psr2_config_valid(intel_dp, > > crtc_state); > > + if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 9) > > + crtc_state->has_psr2 = > > intel_psr2_config_valid(intel_dp, > > + crtc_ > > state); > > DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Enabling PSR%s\n", crtc_state->has_psr2 ? "2" > > : ""); > > } > > > > @@ -534,7 +536,7 @@ static void intel_psr_activate(struct intel_dp > > *intel_dp) > > > > /* psr1 and psr2 are mutually exclusive.*/ > > if (dev_priv->psr.psr2_enabled) > > - hsw_activate_psr2(intel_dp); > > + skl_activate_psr2(intel_dp); > > else > > hsw_activate_psr1(intel_dp); > > > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c index 4bd5768..cbbdfd2 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c @@ -387,7 +387,7 @@ static void hsw_activate_psr1(struct intel_dp *intel_dp) I915_WRITE(EDP_PSR_CTL, val); } -static void hsw_activate_psr2(struct intel_dp *intel_dp) +static void skl_activate_psr2(struct intel_dp *intel_dp) { struct intel_digital_port *dig_port = dp_to_dig_port(intel_dp); struct drm_device *dev = dig_port->base.base.dev; @@ -516,7 +516,9 @@ void intel_psr_compute_config(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, } crtc_state->has_psr = true; - crtc_state->has_psr2 = intel_psr2_config_valid(intel_dp, crtc_state); + if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 9) + crtc_state->has_psr2 = intel_psr2_config_valid(intel_dp, + crtc_state); DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Enabling PSR%s\n", crtc_state->has_psr2 ? "2" : ""); } @@ -534,7 +536,7 @@ static void intel_psr_activate(struct intel_dp *intel_dp) /* psr1 and psr2 are mutually exclusive.*/ if (dev_priv->psr.psr2_enabled) - hsw_activate_psr2(intel_dp); + skl_activate_psr2(intel_dp); else hsw_activate_psr1(intel_dp);