On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 05:21:24PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > Non-display now calls the intel_fsb_freq() and intel_mem_freq() > functions, so we don't have to have the frequencies initialized for dg2 > or non-display cases. > > Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/soc/intel_dram.c | 5 ++++- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/soc/intel_dram.c > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/soc/intel_dram.c > index 193e7f71a356..d896fb67270f 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/soc/intel_dram.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/soc/intel_dram.c > @@ -725,10 +725,13 @@ int intel_dram_detect(struct drm_i915_private *i915) > struct dram_info *dram_info; > int ret; > > + if (IS_DG2(i915) || !HAS_DISPLAY(i915)) > + return 0; > + > detect_fsb_freq(i915); > detect_mem_freq(i915);
but they will only be set to zero no? do we really need to avoid it? if so, perhaps make this change earlier? Also I wonder what's special in DG2, but not in BMG... > > - if (GRAPHICS_VER(i915) < 9 || IS_DG2(i915) || !HAS_DISPLAY(i915)) > + if (GRAPHICS_VER(i915) < 9) what about the old gen remaining here? at least deserves a comment on why it needs the upper calls, but not the call bellow? or should the upper calls be in another function/flow? > return 0; > > dram_info = drmm_kzalloc(&i915->drm, sizeof(*dram_info), GFP_KERNEL); > -- > 2.39.5 >
