Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] drm/i915: Don't check modeset state in the hw state force restore path

[Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>]

On Wed, 17 Jun 2015, Ander Conselvan De Oliveira <conselvan2@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 15:04 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 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
>> >
>> > v2: Rename check parameter to force_restore. (Matt)
>> >
>> > 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>
>> > Reviewed-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
>> 
>> All three patches applied to drm-intel-next-fixes, aiming for v4.2 merge
>> window. Thanks for the patches and review.
>> 
>> For drm-intel-nightly, I resolved the conflicts by ignoring these
>> changes and favoring what's in drm-intel-next-queued. Fingers crossed I
>> didn't botch it up!
>
> In the end, that means only the content of 3/3 is in -nightly. It won't
> fix any of the issues, but shouldn't cause any problems.

But it is expected that Maarten's atomic work will eventually fix this,
right?

BR,
Jani.


>
> Ander
>
>

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx