linux-kernel - Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/7] drm/i915: FDI B/C share 4 lanes on Ivybridge

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:00:58 -0700
From:	Keith Packard <keithp@...thp.com>
To:	"Lespiau\, Damien" <damien.lespiau@...el.com>
Cc:	intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/7] drm/i915: FDI B/C share 4 lanes on Ivybridge

"Lespiau, Damien" <damien.lespiau@...el.com> writes:

> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 5:34 AM, Keith Packard <keithp@...thp.com> wrote:
>
> @@ -3728,7 +3728,8 @@ static inline bool intel_panel_use_ssc(struct
> drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>   */
>  static bool intel_choose_pipe_bpp_dither(struct drm_crtc *crtc,
>                                          unsigned int *pipe_bpp,
> -                                        struct drm_display_mode *mode)
> +                                        struct drm_display_mode *mode,
> +                                        int max_fdi_bpp)
>
> There's some kernel-doc for this function, maybe add a @max_fdi_bpp
> there?

Will do

> This chunk is being moved around in a later patch in the series,
> merging the two patches in one looks like a good idea?

Or at least move this into its final position in this patch.

> I guess this does not cover the case of pipe B using 3 lanes meaning
> pipe C can use 1?

It didn't look like that was a supported mode from the docs.

> This duplicates the code just that is just a few lines away, instead
> how about moving the logic to set target_clock up in front of this
> whole if()?

It's not the same, it's the inverse -- computing bpp from lanes+clock
clock instead of computing lanes from bpp+clock. But, yeah, it would be
nice to have these merged somehow. I couldn't figure out a good way though.

> This chunk is also reworked in a later commit in this series.

I'll see if I can't avoid that as it's confusing. Thanks for your review!

-- 
keith.packard@...el.com

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped