Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 00/11] drm/i915: Fix UHBR data, link M/N/TU and PBN values

[Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2023, Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 02:31:34PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Nov 2023, Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com> wrote:
>> > This is v2 of [1], with the following changes:
>> > - Store the pbn_div value in fixed point format.
>> > - Fix PBN calculation in patch 8.
>> > - Reuse intel_dp_max_data_rate(), intel_dp_effective_data_rate() in
>> >   intel_link_compute_m_n() (Jani).
>> >
>> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231113201110.510724-1-imre.deak@intel.com
>> >
>> > Cc: Arun R Murthy <arun.r.murthy@intel.com>
>> > Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
>> > Cc: Lyude Paul <lyude@redhat.com>
>> >
>> > Imre Deak (11):
>> >   drm/dp_mst: Store the MST PBN divider value in fixed point format
>> >   drm/dp_mst: Fix PBN divider calculation for UHBR rates
>> >   drm/dp_mst: Add kunit tests for drm_dp_get_vc_payload_bw()
>> 
>> Maarten, Maxime, Thomas, ack for merging these three via drm-intel-next?
>> 
>> Imre, I note that said patches were Cc: dri-devel, but for future
>> reference please Cc: the entire series to dri-devel when you include
>> dependencies that you plan to merge via drm-intel.
>
> Ok. I assumed the alternative to merge the 3 patches via drm-misc-next,
> wait for that to get merged back to i915 and then merge the rest to i915
> was still a preferred way; wondering now if in general this is better to
> avoid merge conflicts similar to the one reported now wrt. 
>   "drm/dp_mst: Fix fractional DSC bpp handling".
>
> In any case yes, I can CC dri-devel the whole patchset whenever there
> are any drm changes in it. While still wondering about the ideal
> approach above, I'd still prefer if the 3 drm patches in this one could
> also get merged via the i915 tree.

There are no rigid rules for this.

But it's clearly more problematic when the patches touch not just drm +
one driver, but drm + several drivers. Perhaps that's an indication they
should be merged via drm-misc-next instead of a driver tree.

Also, we probably need to clear up the existing conflicts before adding
more patches in the area to drm-intel-next.

BR,
Jani.


>
> --Imre
>
>> BR,
>> Jani.
>> 
>> 
>> >   drm/i915/dp: Replace intel_dp_is_uhbr_rate() with
>> >     drm_dp_is_uhbr_rate()
>> >   drm/i915/dp: Account for channel coding efficiency on UHBR links
>> >   drm/i915/dp: Fix UHBR link M/N values
>> >   drm/i915/dp_mst: Calculate the BW overhead in
>> >     intel_dp_mst_find_vcpi_slots_for_bpp()
>> >   drm/i915/dp_mst: Fix PBN / MTP_TU size calculation for UHBR rates
>> >   drm/i915/dp: Report a rounded-down value as the maximum data rate
>> >   drm/i915/dp: Simplify intel_dp_max_data_rate()
>> >   drm/i915/dp: Reuse intel_dp_{max,effective}_data_rate in
>> >     intel_link_compute_m_n()
>> >
>> >  .../gpu/drm/amd/display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm.c |   5 +-
>> >  .../amd/display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm_helpers.c |   3 +-
>> >  .../display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm_mst_types.c   |   5 +-
>> >  drivers/gpu/drm/display/drm_dp_mst_topology.c |  31 +++-
>> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c  |  51 ++----
>> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c       |  78 +++++++---
>> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.h       |   5 +-
>> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_mst.c   |  55 +++++--
>> >  drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/dispnv50/disp.c       |   6 +-
>> >  .../gpu/drm/tests/drm_dp_mst_helper_test.c    | 145 ++++++++++++++++++
>> >  include/drm/display/drm_dp_helper.h           |  13 ++
>> >  include/drm/display/drm_dp_mst_helper.h       |   7 +-
>> >  12 files changed, 311 insertions(+), 93 deletions(-)
>> 
>> -- 
>> Jani Nikula, Intel

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel