On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 02:48:48PM -0500, Sean Paul wrote: >> > + if (!crtc && crtc != set->crtc) >> >> I think this should be an || > > Hm. My idea idea was actually something along the lines of > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c > index 4f80885de3f6..077c792c46e0 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c > @@ -1271,7 +1271,14 @@ static int update_output_state(struct drm_atomic_state *state, > struct drm_crtc *crtc = state->crtcs[i]; > struct drm_crtc_state *crtc_state = state->crtc_states[i]; > > - if (!crtc && crtc != set->crtc) > + if (!crtc) > + continue; > + > + /* Don't update ->enable for the CRTC in the set_config request, > + * since a mismatch would indicate a bug in the upper layers. > + * The actual modeset code later on will catch any > + * inconsistencies here. */ > + if (crtc == set->crtc) > continue; > > crtc_state->enable = > > > I.e. that we don't recompute the new enable state for set->crtc so that we > can catch bug in the helper function or core drm code which maps the > legacy ->set_config to the atomic interface. > > Still r-b with that change applied, or want to take a deeper look again? Fixup looks good to me, please add my R-b. Sean > -Daniel > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
