From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Wilson Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/17] drm/i915: Move the tracking of dpms_mode down into crtc enable/disable Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 22:59:38 +0100 Message-ID: <849307$cqn3gb@azsmga001.ch.intel.com> References: <1303420712-6369-1-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> <1303420712-6369-9-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> <849307$cqkkio@azsmga001.ch.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [143.182.124.21]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 632CE9EB0E for ; Wed, 4 May 2011 14:59:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org To: Keith Packard , intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Wed, 04 May 2011 14:20:27 -0700, Keith Packard wrote: > On Wed, 04 May 2011 20:40:37 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > We can remove dpms_mode in favour of solely using active. > > That sounds like a good plan. > > And what about the intel_dp->dpms_mode value? Should it be switched to a > simple 'active' boolean as well? Or is the existing crtc->active value > sufficient? The sticky point is the usage within release-load-detect-pipe where we restore the "dpms-mode". As it stands today, we treat dpms-mode as if it were just a boolean value (ignoring the unknown value). But we should keep the code generic, if it doesn't incur any additional burden, so I'm favouring a multi-valued active or actual-dpms-mode. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre