On Fri, 2017-02-03 at 16:32 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Fri, 03 Feb 2017, Ander Conselvan de Oliveira <ander.conselvan.de.oliveira@ > intel.com> wrote: > > The aux power domain only makes sense in the DP code. Storing it in > > struct intel_dp avoids some indirection. > > This seems to make a whole lot of sense. I've just got one detail I > wanted to track down but don't have time for it now: > > > - case INTEL_OUTPUT_DP: > > - case INTEL_OUTPUT_EDP: > > - intel_dig_port = enc_to_dig_port(&intel_encoder->base); > > - return port_to_aux_power_domain(intel_dig_port->port); > > - case INTEL_OUTPUT_DP_MST: > > - intel_dig_port = enc_to_mst(&intel_encoder->base)->primary; > > - return port_to_aux_power_domain(intel_dig_port->port); > > Is the difference between DP and DP MST not significant, don't we need > to take it into account? Or does it go away with avoiding the > indirection? This goes away with avoiding the indirection. The primary field of an MST encoder points to "real" struct intel_digital_port, whose intel_dp struct will have aux_power_domain properly initialized. Moreover, the MST code never references the AUX power domains. Ander _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
