Re: [PATCH 04/18] drm/vmwgfx: Remove confused comment from vmw_du_connector_atomic_set_property

["Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>]

On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 03:35:12PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> The core _does_ the call to drm_atomic_commit for you. That's pretty
> much the entire point of having the fancy new atomic_set/get_prop
> callbacks.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
> Cc: VMware Graphics <linux-graphics-maintainer@vmware.com>
> Cc: Sinclair Yeh <syeh@vmware.com>
> Cc: Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@vmware.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c | 6 ------
>  1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c
> index 292e48feba83..049bd50eea87 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c
> @@ -2311,12 +2311,6 @@ vmw_du_connector_atomic_set_property(struct drm_connector *connector,
>  
>  	if (property == dev_priv->implicit_placement_property) {
>  		vcs->is_implicit = val;
> -
> -		/*
> -		 * We should really be doing a drm_atomic_commit() to
> -		 * commit the new state, but since this doesn't cause
> -		 * an immedate state change, this is probably ok
> -		 */
>  		du->is_implicit = vcs->is_implicit;

Maybe the comment is referring to delaying the du->is_implicit
assignment to commit time? Otherwise a TEST_ONLY/failed commit
will clobber this.

Hmm. There's both .set_property() and .atomic_set_property()
in there. I wonder what that's about.

>  	} else {
>  		return -EINVAL;
> -- 
> 2.19.0.rc2
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx