From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Ankit Nautiyal" <ankit.k.nautiyal@intel.com>,
intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/dsc: Fix QP table index calculation for bpp selection
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2026 10:47:12 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <sashiko-outbox-174203@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261016101713.230013-2-ankit.k.nautiyal@intel.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] drm/i915/dsc: incomplete fix due to unscaled fractional_bits in QP index calculation
--
commit f16f36523ce6f8e8fca7d8b3376a00ba0a384a25
Author: Ankit Nautiyal <ankit.k.nautiyal@intel.com>
Subject: drm/i915/dsc: Fix QP table index calculation for bpp selection
This patch fixes the QP table index calculation for a given bpp by restoring
a missing multiplier of 2 for the integer portion of the calculation. This
aims to ensure proper table layout alignment.
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vdsc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vdsc.c
> index 8f06c3a4d56df..7a573c2b6a7dd 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vdsc.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vdsc.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ calculate_rc_params(struct drm_dsc_config *vdsc_cfg)
> * and so on.
> * 0.5 fractional part with 4 decimal precision becomes 5000
> */
> - bpp_i = ((bpp - 6) + (fractional_bits < 5000 ? 0 : 1));
> + bpp_i = (2 * (bpp - 6) + (fractional_bits < 5000 ? 0 : 1));
[Severity: Medium]
Does this calculation completely fix the index calculation, or is there a
missing scaling factor for fractional_bits?
Earlier in calculate_rc_params(), fractional_bits is extracted directly from
a Q4 value:
int fractional_bits = fxp_q4_to_frac(vdsc_cfg->bits_per_pixel);
Since fxp_q4_to_frac() returns the raw Q4 fractional bits (which are strictly
in the range 0-15), the condition (fractional_bits < 5000) will always evaluate
to true.
Because of this, the expression (fractional_bits < 5000 ? 0 : 1) will always
evaluate to 0, which means the 0.5 fractional bpp increment is ignored. Is
fractional_bits missing the 10000 scaling factor expected by this logic?
>
> for (buf_i = 0; buf_i < DSC_NUM_BUF_RANGES; buf_i++) {
> u8 range_bpg_offset;
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261016101713.230013-1-ankit.k.nautiyal@intel.com?part=1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-16 10:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-16 10:17 [PATCH 0/2] drm/i915/dsc: Fix QP, RC parameters issues Ankit Nautiyal
2026-10-16 10:17 ` [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/dsc: Fix QP table index calculation for bpp selection Ankit Nautiyal
2026-10-16 10:47 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-10-16 10:17 ` [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915/dsc: Fix the helper range_bpg_offset() Ankit Nautiyal
2026-10-16 10:41 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success for drm/i915/dsc: Fix QP, RC parameters issues Patchwork
2026-10-16 11:33 ` ✓ Xe.CI.BAT: " Patchwork
2026-10-16 19:23 ` ✓ Xe.CI.FULL: " Patchwork
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=sashiko-outbox-174203@kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=ankit.k.nautiyal@intel.com \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
/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