Quoting Jani Nikula (2019-09-16 10:29:01) > Stop setting ->pipe_mask to zero when display is disabled, allowing us > to have different code paths for not actually having display hardware, > and having display hardware disabled. This lets us develop those two > avenues independently. > > There are no functional changes for when there is no display. However, > all uses of for_each_pipe() and for_each_pipe_masked() will start > running for the disabled display case. Put one of the more significant > ones behind checks for INTEL_DISPLAY_ENABLED(), otherwise the cases > should not be hit with disabled display, or they seem benign. Fingers > crossed. > > All in all, this might not be the ideal solution. In fact we may have > had something along the lines of this in the past, but we ended up > conflating the two cases. Possibly even by recommendation by yours > truly; I did not dare dig up that part of the history. But the perfect > is the enemy of the good, this is a straightforward change, and lets us > get actual work done in both fronts without interfering with each other. > > Cc: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> > Cc: José Roberto de Souza <jose.so...@intel.com> > Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nik...@intel.com>
It doesn't fall over, which is impressive enough. Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
