From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ville =?iso-8859-1?Q?Syrj=E4l=E4?= <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/11] drm/i915: Factor out
 i9xx_compute_clocks() like ironlake_compute_clocks()
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 19:04:29 +0200
Message-ID: <20121031170429.GG3791@intel.com>
References: <1351698624-26626-1-git-send-email-ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
	<1351698624-26626-5-git-send-email-ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
	<20121031162840.GH5755@phenom.ffwll.local>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 421749EB3C
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Wed, 31 Oct 2012 10:04:33 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20121031162840.GH5755@phenom.ffwll.local>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 05:28:40PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 05:50:17PM +0200, ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com w=
rote:
> > From: Ville Syrj=E4l=E4 <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
> > =

> > Split the i9xx clock stuff out from i9xx_compute_clocks().
> > =

> > Only compile tested!
> > =

> > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrj=E4l=E4 <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
> =

> I'm working on a massive overhaul of the clock computation madness, so
> that we do all that stuff before we start to touch the hw (and so would
> finally have a reasonable chance at getting global bw issues right).

I was sure that the compute_clock() funcs already satisfied that.
Perhaps I didn't look hard enough.

The reason for this patch actually was that I'm already using that
approach in the atomic modeset code. Ie. I call compute_clock() for
all modified CRTCs before touching the hardware.

Or is the problem simply that multiple calls to compute_clock() would
depend on some bit of state that is changed somewhere later in
crtc_mode_set()? So that when doing a multi-CRTC modeset, the final
state is never seen by any of the compute_clock() funcs when used this
way?

-- =

Ville Syrj=E4l=E4
Intel OTC