Op 05-01-16 om 10:10 schreef Daniel Vetter:
> On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 10:05:21AM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>> Op 05-01-16 om 09:35 schreef Daniel Vetter:
>>> On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 12:53:19PM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>>>> Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankho...@linux.intel.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 11 ++++++++---
>>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
>>>> index 1e42309ec40a..b76778d76035 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
>>>> @@ -15421,6 +15421,7 @@ static void intel_sanitize_crtc(struct intel_crtc
>>>> *crtc)
>>>> WARN_ON(drm_atomic_set_mode_for_crtc(crtc->base.state, NULL) <
>>>> 0);
>>>> crtc->base.state->active = crtc->active;
>>>> crtc->base.enabled = crtc->active;
>>>> + crtc->base.state->connector_mask = 0;
>>>>
>>>> /* Because we only establish the connector -> encoder ->
>>>> * crtc links if something is active, this means the
>>>> @@ -15456,20 +15457,24 @@ static void intel_sanitize_encoder(struct
>>>> intel_encoder *encoder)
>>>> {
>>>> struct intel_connector *connector;
>>>> struct drm_device *dev = encoder->base.dev;
>>>> + struct drm_crtc *crtc = encoder->base.crtc;
>>>> bool active = false;
>>>>
>>>> /* We need to check both for a crtc link (meaning that the
>>>> * encoder is active and trying to read from a pipe) and the
>>>> * pipe itself being active. */
>>>> - bool has_active_crtc = encoder->base.crtc &&
>>>> - to_intel_crtc(encoder->base.crtc)->active;
>>>> + bool has_active_crtc = crtc && crtc->state->active;
>>>>
>>>> for_each_intel_connector(dev, connector) {
>>>> if (connector->base.encoder != &encoder->base)
>>>> continue;
>>>>
>>>> active = true;
>>>> - break;
>>>> + if (!has_active_crtc)
>>>> + break;
>>>> +
>>>> + crtc->state->connector_mask |=
>>>> + 1 << drm_connector_index(&connector->base);
>>> I still think this is the wrong place. Imo this should be done in
>>> intel_modeset_update_connector_atomic_state. It'd be great if we could
>>> somehow share the logic with drm_atomic_set_crtc_for_connector even, but
>>> that's probably over the top.
>>>
>> No it should be done sooner. I want to be able use it anywhere in the
>> .crtc_disable calls without worrying about it..
> Well I don't want to split things up all over. Atm our state recover is a
> complete mess, and we need to start recovering some order in it. Updating
> related things at completely different places without even a comment
> stating why that's required is imo a no-go.
Ok so if I resubmit with a comment in this hunk it will be acceptable?
~Maarten
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
