On 2022-08-30 16:50:04 [+0200], Daniel Vetter wrote: > Long story short, I have no idea why the direct call to unblank_screen > survived for so long (the infrastructure to do it properly existed for > years), nor why it wasn't removed when the console_unblank() call was > finally added. But it makes a ton more sense to finally do that than > not - it's just better encapsulation to go through the console > functions instead of doing a direct call, so let's dare. Plus it > really does not make much sense to call the only unblank > implementation there is twice, once without, and once with appropriate > locking. Yup, calling it twice is redundant. The only difference I see is that the console implementation relies on CONFIG_VT_CONSOLE while the former relied only on CONFIG_VT. There should be no console output without CONFIG_VT_CONSOLE so no need to unblank it. Acked-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sebastian
