Op 14-09-15 om 19:10 schreef Daniel Stone: > Hi, > > On 14 September 2015 at 10:30, Maarten Lankhorst > <[email protected]> wrote: >> @@ -13013,14 +13013,15 @@ static int intel_atomic_check(struct drm_device >> *dev, >> if (ret) >> return ret; >> >> - if (intel_pipe_config_compare(state->dev, >> - to_intel_crtc_state(crtc->state), >> - pipe_config, true)) { >> + if (!crtc_state->connectors_changed && >> + !crtc_state->active_changed && look >> + crtc_state->active && >> + intel_pipe_config_compare(state->dev, >> + >> to_intel_crtc_state(crtc->state), >> + pipe_config, true)) { >> crtc_state->mode_changed = false; >> - to_intel_crtc_state(crtc_state)->update_pipe = true; >> - } >> - >> - if (needs_modeset(crtc_state)) { >> + pipe_config->update_pipe = true; >> + } else { >> any_ms = true; > The change from only setting any_ms if needs_modeset() is true, to > always if we can't do a fastset, seems correct but maybe a bit subtle. It's exactly the same thing, just made a bit more explicit.
before: any_ms = needs_modeset() with mode_changed = !update_pipe. After: any_ms = !update_pipe. > Was that intended? At the moment it does look like it'll widen the net > a little bit, but I _suspect_ that's a good thing. Pending igt: > Acked-by: Daniel Stone <[email protected]> > > Cheers, > Daniel _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
