Hi, On 13 July 2015 at 15:30, Maarten Lankhorst <[email protected]> wrote: > @@ -13649,9 +13647,7 @@ static void intel_begin_crtc_commit(struct drm_crtc > *crtc) > > /* Perform vblank evasion around commit operation */ > if (crtc->state->active) > - intel_crtc->atomic.evade = > - intel_pipe_update_start(intel_crtc, > - > &intel_crtc->atomic.start_vbl_count); > + intel_pipe_update_start(intel_crtc, > &intel_crtc->atomic.start_vbl_count); > > if (!needs_modeset(crtc->state) && INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen >= 9) > skl_detach_scalers(intel_crtc); > @@ -13663,9 +13659,8 @@ static void intel_finish_crtc_commit(struct drm_crtc > *crtc) > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private; > struct intel_crtc *intel_crtc = to_intel_crtc(crtc); > > - if (intel_crtc->atomic.evade) > - intel_pipe_update_end(intel_crtc, > - intel_crtc->atomic.start_vbl_count);
Can we get rid of the 'evade' member in the struct now? Cheers, Daniel _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
