Op 28-03-17 om 09:01 schreef Daniel Vetter:
> <snip>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> index 68cded453882..43dbad62786e 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> @@ -12463,6 +12463,11 @@ static int intel_atomic_check(struct drm_device *dev,
> ret = drm_atomic_helper_check_modeset(dev, state);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
> + /* enocder->atomic_check might upgrade some crtc to a full modeset */
> + ret = drm_atomic_helper_check_modeset(dev, state);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
>
> for_each_oldnew_crtc_in_state(state, crtc, old_crtc_state, crtc_state, i) {
> struct intel_crtc_state *pipe_config =
I know this patch has been applied, but this hunk is completely unrelated.
Can I get a R-B on reverting it?
---->8----
v2 of the commit 2c77bb29d398 ("drm: simplify the locking in the GETCRTC ioctl")
accidentally introduced a unrelated change in intel_display.c, revert the
unrelated change.
Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Fixes: 2c77bb29d398 ("drm: simplify the locking in the GETCRTC ioctl")
---
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
index baa8d836c8e7..c45694abda5b 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
@@ -12478,11 +12478,6 @@ static int intel_atomic_check(struct drm_device *dev,
ret = drm_atomic_helper_check_modeset(dev, state);
if (ret)
return ret;
- /* enocder->atomic_check might upgrade some crtc to a full modeset */
- ret = drm_atomic_helper_check_modeset(dev, state);
- if (ret)
- return ret;
-
for_each_oldnew_crtc_in_state(state, crtc, old_crtc_state, crtc_state, i) {
struct intel_crtc_state *pipe_config =
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
