Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Don't check modeset state in the hw state force restore path

Ander Conselvan De Oliveira
2015-06-02T07:31:00Z

On Tue, 2015-06-02 at 09:27 +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> Op 02-06-15 om 09:12 schreef Jani Nikula:
> > On Mon, 01 Jun 2015, Ander Conselvan de Oliveira <ander.conselvan.de.oliveira@intel.com> wrote:
> >> Since the force restore logic will restore the CRTCs state one at a
> >> time, it is possible that the state will be inconsistent until the whole
> >> operation finishes. A call to intel_modeset_check_state() is done once
> >> it's over, so don't check the state multiple times in between. This
> >> regression was introduced in:
> >>
> >> commit 7f27126ea3db6ade886f18fd39caf0ff0cd1d37f
> >> Author: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
> >> Date: Wed Nov 5 14:26:06 2014 -0800
> >>
> >> drm/i915: factor out compute_config from __intel_set_mode v3
> >>
> >> Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94431
> >> Cc: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
> >> Signed-off-by: Ander Conselvan de Oliveira <ander.conselvan.de.oliveira@intel.com>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> This patch applies on top of nightly, but it is only relevant without
> >> Maarten's "drm/i915: Convert to atomic, part 2" series, because of the
> >> changes to the hw state read out and force restore logic.
> >>
> >> The regression exists since 3.19.
> > Sooo, I think this should be applied to fixes, with cc: stable v3.19+,
> > and IIUC Maarten's series makes this obsolete in dinq?
> >
> > Now we just need review... Maarten?
> >
> > BR,
> > Jani.
> Reviewed-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
>
> Looks good to me, but it will conflict with my own patch series. :(

I think it's fine to skip this for dinq, since we move to a single
modeset in the force restore path with your patch series. I just got
confused with what branch to base this on. Thanks for reviewing.

Ander