On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:13:02AM -0500, Sean Paul wrote: > On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 5:08 AM, Daniel Vetter <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 05:31:30PM -0500, Sean Paul wrote: > >> This patch removes the locking from the downclock routines since we are no > >> longer locking the registers at all. See ed10fca9 for the original commit > >> changing this philosophy. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Sean Paul <[email protected]> > > > > I've thought this was due to paranoia because we don't trust our own code > > and because we don't trust the bios to randomly lock this again. Without > > any reasons to the contrary, I'll prefer to keep this. > > Thanks for the explanation, Daniel, however I'd ask that you > reconsider this patch. > > The state coming into the downclock functions is unlocked and without > this patch, the state coming out is locked. This causes at least one > warning in the code from assert_panel_unlocked.
Ah, that's a pretty important thing missing from the commit message. I've checked the code and we have indeed an issue there. Can you please: - Extend your commit message to mention that you're actually hitting the assert_panel_unlocked assert (and how this happens). Maybe explain that you need lvds downclocking, which is disabled by default. - Add an assert_panel_unlocked call instead of unlocking the panel in your patch (we do need to be paranoid about these things). Then I think your patch is good to go into -next. Yours, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Mail: [email protected] Mobile: +41 (0)79 365 57 48 _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
