On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 04:01:20PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com> > > Cdclk < crtc_clock is not allowed and suggests a different problem > elsewhere in the code. > > It is more robust and safe to assume no scaling is possible in > this case with no other downsides since it will also WARN_ON_ONCE > so that this definitely gets noticed. > > Call it an assert to help new platform bring-up in simulation. > > v2: Better commit msg and use WARN_ON_ONCE to signify the unexpectedness. > > Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com> > Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > index 9cb29086971a..f315ed45358f 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > @@ -13439,7 +13439,7 @@ skl_max_scale(struct intel_crtc *intel_crtc, struct > intel_crtc_state *crtc_state > crtc_clock = crtc_state->base.adjusted_mode.crtc_clock; > cdclk = to_intel_atomic_state(crtc_state->base.state)->cdclk; > > - if (!crtc_clock || !cdclk) > + if (!crtc_clock || !cdclk || WARN_ON_ONCE(cdclk < crtc_clock))
I'm thinking the zero crtc_clock check should also be inside the WARN. And you could drop the !cdclk part since the < already covers it. With those: Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com> > return DRM_PLANE_HELPER_NO_SCALING; > > /* > -- > 1.9.1 -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
