Re: [PATCH v3 14/22] drm/i915: Move cdclk and pll setup to intel_modeset_compute_config()

[Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>]

Op 29-05-15 om 02:55 schreef Matt Roper:
> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 06:04:26PM +0200, maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com wrote:
>> From: Ander Conselvan de Oliveira <ander.conselvan.de.oliveira@intel.com>
>>
>> It makes more sense there, since these are computation steps that can
>> fail.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
> I've noticed that a few of the patches in this series were originally
> written by Ander, but seem to be missing his s-o-b line.  I think you
> generally want to just append your line after his in that case.
>
> One other cosmetic note farther down.
>
>> ---
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 70 ++++++++++++++++++------------------
>>  1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
>> index 81d5358efdde..e7aa8610cbdc 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
>> @@ -12085,37 +12085,6 @@ static void update_scanline_offset(struct intel_crtc *crtc)
>>  		crtc->scanline_offset = 1;
>>  }
>>  
>> -static int
>> -intel_modeset_compute_config(struct drm_atomic_state *state)
>> -{
>> -	struct drm_crtc *crtc;
>> -	struct drm_crtc_state *crtc_state;
>> -	int ret, i;
>> -
>> -	ret = drm_atomic_helper_check_modeset(state->dev, state);
>> -	if (ret)
>> -		return ret;
>> -
>> -	for_each_crtc_in_state(state, crtc, crtc_state, i) {
>> -		if (!crtc_state->enable &&
>> -		    WARN_ON(crtc_state->active))
>> -			crtc_state->active = false;
>> -
>> -		if (!crtc_state->enable)
>> -			continue;
>> -
>> -		ret = intel_modeset_pipe_config(crtc, state);
>> -		if (ret)
>> -			return ret;
>> -
>> -		intel_dump_pipe_config(to_intel_crtc(crtc),
>> -				       to_intel_crtc_state(crtc_state),
>> -				       "[modeset]");
>> -	}
>> -
>> -	return drm_atomic_helper_check_planes(state->dev, state);
>> -}
>> -
>>  static int __intel_set_mode_setup_plls(struct drm_atomic_state *state)
>>  {
>>  	struct drm_device *dev = state->dev;
>> @@ -12191,6 +12160,41 @@ static int __intel_set_mode_checks(struct drm_atomic_state *state)
>>  	return 0;
>>  }
>>  
>> +static int
>> +intel_modeset_compute_config(struct drm_atomic_state *state)
>> +{
>> +	struct drm_crtc *crtc;
>> +	struct drm_crtc_state *crtc_state;
>> +	int ret, i;
>> +
>> +	ret = drm_atomic_helper_check_modeset(state->dev, state);
>> +	if (ret)
>> +		return ret;
>> +
>> +	for_each_crtc_in_state(state, crtc, crtc_state, i) {
>> +		if (!crtc_state->enable &&
>> +		    WARN_ON(crtc_state->active))
>> +			crtc_state->active = false;
>> +
>> +		if (!crtc_state->enable)
>> +			continue;
>> +
>> +		ret = intel_modeset_pipe_config(crtc, state);
>> +		if (ret)
>> +			return ret;
>> +
>> +		intel_dump_pipe_config(to_intel_crtc(crtc),
>> +				       to_intel_crtc_state(crtc_state),
>> +				       "[modeset]");
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	ret = drm_atomic_helper_check_planes(state->dev, state);
>> +	if (ret)
>> +		return ret;
>> +
>> +	return __intel_set_mode_checks(state);
> Just a cosmetic note, but maybe we should rename this function now?
> It's not called from __intel_set_mode anymore and it isn't really
> 'checks' (but rather setup that we intend to be done during the check
> phase), so the whole name seems a bit misleading now.
>
Later on intel_modeset_compute_config gets renamed to intel_atomic_check,
and I conditionally run intel_set_mode_checks depending on whether a modeset
is requested or not. I guess __intel_set_mode_checks could be renamed to intel_modeset_checks.

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