Re: [PATCH v2 09/12] drm/i915: Rewrite VLV/CHV watermark code

[Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>]

On 03/06/2015 10:14 AM, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 09:31:20AM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
>> On 03/05/2015 11:19 AM, ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com wrote:
>>> From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
>> I wonder if we should be warning if the wm values we end up with exceed
>> the mask size (the fact that you write them with a shift and mask made
>> me think of it), but that could be a follow on, or even put into the
>> calc code instead.  Anyway that's something we can do later after all
>> the atomic changes hit.
> 
> IIRC we always have enough bits up to any legal FIFO size, so the clamping
> done by vlv_compute_wm() should be enough. I should double check that though
> since that isn't the case on a bunch of the other platforms.
> 
> I think in general I'd really like magic register bitfield macros that
> scream whenever we overflow something by accident. But that's a much
> bigger topic. For one we'd have to parametrize all the macros rather than
> using raw shifts.

Yeah and that would have the added benefit of more readability.
Something for another day if/when we see underruns due to failed wm
programming in the future. :)

> 
>>
>> Does this fix any of our underrun bugs?  Should it have any references:
>> lines?
> 
> Those should probably be at the DDR DVFS disable patch since before that
> pretty much anything can happen. I was too lazy to trawl bugzilla though.
> Pretty much hoping QA can just go retest all display bugs once we get
> this landed.

Ok, sounds good.

Thanks,
Jesse

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