Hi Maarten,
Forgot to refresh my working tree. Please help to
apply this patch on top of previous one to solve a compilation bug.
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_acpi.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/no
index c6c7d0d..83face3 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_acpi.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_acpi.c
@@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ static int nouveau_check_optimus_dsm(acpi_handle handle)
* Function 0 returns a Buffer containing available functions.
* The args parameter is ignored for function 0, so just put 0 in it
*/
- if (nouveau_optimus_dsm(handle, 0, 0, &result)
+ if (nouveau_optimus_dsm(handle, 0, 0, &result))
return 0;
On 2014/2/19 12:53, Jiang Liu wrote:
> On some platforms, ACPI _DSM method (nouveau_op_dsm_muid, function 0)
> has special requirements on the fourth parameter, which is different
> from ACPI specifications. So revert to the private implementation
> to check availability of _DSM functions instead of using common
> acpi_check_dsm() interface.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Hi Maarten,
> Thanks for bisecting. Could you please help to verify whether
> this patch fixes the regression?
>
> Thanks!
> Gerry
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_acpi.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_acpi.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_acpi.c
> index 4ef83df..c6c7d0d 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_acpi.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_acpi.c
> @@ -106,6 +106,29 @@ static int nouveau_optimus_dsm(acpi_handle handle, int func, int arg, uint32_t *
> return 0;
> }
>
> +/*
> + * On some platforms, _DSM(nouveau_op_dsm_muid, func0) has special
> + * requirements on the fourth parameter, so a private implementation
> + * instead of using acpi_check_dsm().
> + */
> +static int nouveau_check_optimus_dsm(acpi_handle handle)
> +{
> + int result;
> +
> + /*
> + * Function 0 returns a Buffer containing available functions.
> + * The args parameter is ignored for function 0, so just put 0 in it
> + */
> + if (nouveau_optimus_dsm(handle, 0, 0, &result)
> + return 0;
> +
> + /*
> + * ACPI Spec v4 9.14.1: if bit 0 is zero, no function is supported.
> + * If the n-th bit is enabled, function n is supported
> + */
> + return result & 1 && result & (1 << NOUVEAU_DSM_OPTIMUS_CAPS);
> +}
> +
> static int nouveau_dsm(acpi_handle handle, int func, int arg)
> {
> int ret = 0;
> @@ -207,8 +230,7 @@ static int nouveau_dsm_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> 1 << NOUVEAU_DSM_POWER))
> retval |= NOUVEAU_DSM_HAS_MUX;
>
> - if (acpi_check_dsm(dhandle, nouveau_op_dsm_muid, 0x00000100,
> - 1 << NOUVEAU_DSM_OPTIMUS_CAPS))
> + if (nouveau_check_optimus_dsm(dhandle))
> retval |= NOUVEAU_DSM_HAS_OPT;
>
> if (retval & NOUVEAU_DSM_HAS_OPT) {
>
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
