On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 07:48:45AM +0000, Pandiyan, Dhinakaran wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 09:36 +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> > 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);
>
>
> Noticed this while testing my driver-private object series.
> drm_atomic_helper_check_modeset->atomic_release() getting called twice
> within an atomic_check() broke the vcpi slots bookkeeping I had and
> ironically exposed a bug in my code.
>
> Reported-by: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan@xxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan@xxxxxxxxx>
Oh derp this is embarrassing :( Thanks for the quick fix, applied.
-Daniel
>
>
> > - 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
>
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
