From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
To: "Kannan, Vandana" <vandana.kannan@intel.com>
Cc: "intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org" <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 4/7] drm/i915: Program PPS registers
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:23:45 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141027142345.GP26941@phenom.ffwll.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <544E0F94.6020006@intel.com>
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 02:55:40PM +0530, Kannan, Vandana wrote:
> I went through the LVDS and DSI parts. If software delays are used for both,
> would it really add more value to have the delays in a function in
> intel_panel.c and call whenever required ?
> I'm thinking directly calling a msleep would be simpler but that would mean
> the PPS part wont be in one place in intel_panel.c.
> Let me know what you think about this..
Hm, I don't really follow what you mean? I think for now we can just
rework the pps for dp and leave things aside. Of course I'm not going to
stop you if you want to rework dsi/lvds too. But I'm not sure how valuable
that will be really. dsi maybe ...
Anyway the functions in dp have some niece tricks to only wait the
remaining time. So e.g. if the timeout is 500ms, but we've done the power
switch already 200ms ago then it will only wait the remaining 300ms. So if
you want to unify all this I think it would be best to use the existing
wait functions from dp, since they're more optimized.
Cheers, Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-10-27 14:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-10-20 12:50 [RFC v2 0/7] Rearranging PPS related code Vandana Kannan
2014-10-20 12:50 ` [RFC 1/7] drm/i915: Move around funcs related to eDP PPS Vandana Kannan
2014-10-20 12:50 ` [RFC 2/7] drm/i915: Setup PPS in intel_panel Vandana Kannan
2014-10-20 12:50 ` [RFC 3/7] drm/i915: Split PPS setup code based on platform Vandana Kannan
2014-10-20 12:50 ` [RFC 4/7] drm/i915: Program PPS registers Vandana Kannan
2014-10-20 16:08 ` Daniel Vetter
2014-10-20 16:10 ` Daniel Vetter
2014-10-20 16:28 ` Ville Syrjälä
2014-10-27 9:25 ` Kannan, Vandana
2014-10-27 14:23 ` Daniel Vetter [this message]
2014-10-20 12:50 ` [RFC 5/7] drm/i915: Split PPS reg write func based on platform Vandana Kannan
2014-10-20 12:50 ` [RFC 6/7] drm/i915: Replace all refs to intel_dp delays Vandana Kannan
2014-10-20 12:50 ` [RFC 7/7] drm/i915: Modify refs to intel dp timestamps Vandana Kannan
2014-10-20 16:14 ` Daniel Vetter
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20141027142345.GP26941@phenom.ffwll.local \
--to=daniel@ffwll.ch \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=vandana.kannan@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox