On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 07:02:53PM +0000, Daniel Stone wrote: > Hi, > > > On 13 Dec 2016, at 6:48 pm, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 06:19:12PM +0000, Daniel Stone wrote: > >> @@ -357,7 +357,10 @@ int drm_mode_getcrtc(struct drm_device *dev, > >> > >> drm_modeset_lock_crtc(crtc, crtc->primary); > >> crtc_resp->gamma_size = crtc->gamma_size; > >> - if (crtc->primary->fb) > >> + > >> + if (crtc->primary->state && crtc->primary->state->fb) > >> + crtc_resp->fb_id = crtc->primary->state->fb->base.id; > >> + else if (!crtc->primary->state && crtc->primary->fb) > >> crtc_resp->fb_id = crtc->primary->fb->base.id; > > > > I think what we do elsewhere is totally ignore the legacy junk if the > > ->state pointer exists. > > Indeed, hence the negative state check on the second branch; having nested if statements instead seemed unnecessarily unwieldy, but the effect is the same. My bad. You hid it well though ;) Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
