On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 22:08:35 +0200 Daniel Vetter <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hopefully this makes userspace slightly less confused about us > frobbing the dpms state behind its back. Yeah, it would be better > to be more careful with not changing the dpms state, but that is > quite more invasive. > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 6 ++++++ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > index 805324d..bff0936 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > @@ -6806,7 +6806,13 @@ intel_modeset_update_state(struct drm_device *dev, > unsigned prepare_pipes) > intel_crtc = to_intel_crtc(connector->encoder->crtc); > > if (prepare_pipes & (1 << intel_crtc->pipe)) { > + struct drm_property *dpms_property = > + dev->mode_config.dpms_property; > + > connector->dpms = DRM_MODE_DPMS_ON; > + drm_connector_property_set_value(connector, > + dpms_property, > + DRM_MODE_DPMS_ON); > > intel_encoder = to_intel_encoder(connector->encoder); > intel_encoder->connectors_active = true; Both this and the last one need lots of testing coming from different DPMS states between fbcon and X, especially across different heads and connectors. Reviewed-by: Jesse Barnes <[email protected]> -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
