Re: [PATCH 03/13] drm/i915: Don't copy the DP source rates arrays

From: sonika <sonika.jindal@intel.com>
To: "Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/13] drm/i915: Don't copy the DP source rates arrays
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 17:03:28 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5506BF88.3000804@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150316105535.GH17419@intel.com>


On Monday 16 March 2015 04:25 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 03:07:05PM +0530, Jindal, Sonika wrote:
>>
>> On 3/16/2015 3:04 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 02:43:19PM +0530, Jindal, Sonika wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 3/12/2015 8:40 PM, ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com wrote:
>>>>> From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> The source rates don't change, so we can just point the caller at the
>>>>> const arrays.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>     drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 24 ++++++++++--------------
>>>>>     1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
>>>>> index d638f5e..537f1d0 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
>>>>> @@ -1157,22 +1157,18 @@ intel_read_sink_rates(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, int *sink_rates)
>>>>>     }
>>>>>
>>>>>     static int
>>>>> -intel_read_source_rates(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, int *source_rates)
>>>>> +intel_dp_source_rates(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, const int **source_rates)
>>>>>     {
>>>>>     	struct drm_device *dev = intel_dp_to_dev(intel_dp);
>>>>> -	int i;
>>>>> -	int max_default_rate;
>>>>>
>>>>> -	if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen >= 9 && intel_dp->supported_rates[0]) {
>>>>> -		for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(gen9_rates); ++i)
>>>>> -			source_rates[i] = gen9_rates[i];
>>>>> -	} else {
>>>>> -		/* Index of the max_link_bw supported + 1 */
>>>>> -		max_default_rate = (intel_dp_max_link_bw(intel_dp) >> 3) + 1;
>>>>> -		for (i = 0; i < max_default_rate; ++i)
>>>>> -			source_rates[i] = default_rates[i];
>>>>> +	if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen >= 9) {
>>>>> +		*source_rates = gen9_rates;
>>>>> +		return ARRAY_SIZE(gen9_rates);
>>>>>     	}
>>>>> -	return i;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	*source_rates = default_rates;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	return (intel_dp_max_link_bw(intel_dp) >> 3) + 1;
>>>> Now when intel_dp_max_link_bw doesn't do much, can this be simply
>>>> ARRAY_SIZE(default_rates)? and we can get away with this function.
>>> If you'll look at patch 6 you'll see me moving the source limitations
>>> from intel_dp_max_link_bw() to intel_dp_source_rates().
>>>
>> Yes, thats why I think we can remove the intel_dp_max_link_bw function
>> altogether.
> We still need it to limit the sink rates appropriately when
> SUPPORTED_LINK_RATES is not present.
But with this series, haven't we already removed that? We are not using 
it anymore.
>>>>>     }
>>>>>
>>>>>     static void
>>>>> @@ -1269,12 +1265,12 @@ intel_dp_compute_config(struct intel_encoder *encoder,
>>>>>     	int link_avail, link_clock;
>>>>>     	int sink_rates[8];
>>>>>     	int supported_rates[8] = {0};
>>>>> -	int source_rates[8];
>>>>> +	const int *source_rates;
>>>>>     	int source_len, sink_len, supported_len;
>>>>>
>>>>>     	sink_len = intel_read_sink_rates(intel_dp, sink_rates);
>>>>>
>>>>> -	source_len = intel_read_source_rates(intel_dp, source_rates);
>>>>> +	source_len = intel_dp_source_rates(intel_dp, &source_rates);
>>>>>
>>>>>     	supported_len = intel_supported_rates(source_rates, source_len,
>>>>>     				sink_rates, sink_len, supported_rates);
>>>>>

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx