On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Alex Deucher <alexdeucher at gmail.com> wrote: > To me at least, it doesn't make sense that an encoder can clone > itself. If an encoder is already in use, trying to clone itself would > only lead to confusion and possible bugs (make sure some code path > doesn't try and reprogram the encoder again, etc.).
For me the possible_clones mask is just the set of encoders which can together share a crtc (presuming that crtc is indeed in all of the possible_crtcs mask of each encoder). From that pov it makes imo sense that a given encoder itself can always be with itself on the same crtc ;-) Otoh setcrtc doesn't care one bit about encoders (the crtc helpers do internally use them, but it's not interface). And the possible_clones stuff is by far not enough to describe all hw restrictions. So tbh I don't care which way we go (or whether we indeed keep on using this much at all). -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
