On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> Quoting Rodrigo Vivi (2017-08-10 15:50:43)
>> I'm not sure if this is really the case and I don't believe
>> this is the real fix for the bug mentioned here, but since
>> I don't see a reliable path when mst_port is set and when
>> mode_valid is requested I believe it is worth to have this
>> protection here.
>
> The guard looks correct. We defend ourselves against the async
> disconnect elsewhere through the post-detect callbacks, i.e. we cannot
> rely on intel_connector->mst_port remaining valid for a whole detect()
> cycle.
>
> Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk>

thanks, merged to dinq.

the discussion around the actual bug should move back to 102022


> -Chris
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx



-- 
Rodrigo Vivi
Blog: http://blog.vivi.eng.br
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Reply via email to