[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <864nvjcrx3.fsf@sumi.keithp.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:56:40 -0800
From: Keith Packard <keithp@...thp.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
Cc: intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
Lubos Kolouch <lubos.kolouch@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: Select DP BPC at mode set, rather than mode validate
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:11:00 +0100, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch> wrote:
> I'm a bit unhappy how generic code in intel_display.c calls function out
> of intel_dp.c. And choose_pipe_bpp_dither already has special cases for
> quite a few other encoders ... Could we add an ->adjust_bpc function to
> intel_encoder to separate this in a cleaner fashion?
Yeah, seems quite reasonable.
I can't find any reason why the lane count and link bw values are set in
fixup_mode and not just in intel_dp_set_mode. If we moved that, we could
use the bpp value computed in intel_display.c.
There's a weird mixture of code in ironlake_crtc_mode_set where it calls
intel_edp_link_config and uses those values when setting the CPU M/N
values for non-PCH eDP panels. That would also need fixing.
> I know that this isn't really the only layering violation in
> intel_display.c, but functions in that file have an uncanny ability to
> grow without bounds ;-)
The more we clean things up, the easier fixing bugs is in the future.
> As you've already said in another mail, this PCH_SPLIT here looks a bit
> strange. Could we unify these two paths here a bit?
The simple way to unify them would be to use
intel_choose_pipe_bpp_dither from the i9xx_crtc_mode_set path. Perhaps
that function could codify the currently simplistic rule used on i9xx?
--
keith.packard@...el.com
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists