I don't think the checking of resources in this function is very
atomic-like, but it should definitely not use a macro that's about
to be removed.
Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: VMware Graphics <linux-graphics-maintainer@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Sinclair Yeh <syeh@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c
index 1cd67b10a0d9..64f66ff97fab 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c
@@ -1536,8 +1536,7 @@ vmw_kms_atomic_check_modeset(struct drm_device *dev,
struct vmw_private *dev_priv = vmw_priv(dev);
int i;
-
- for_each_crtc_in_state(state, crtc, crtc_state, i) {
+ for_each_new_crtc_in_state(state, crtc, crtc_state, i) {
unsigned long requested_bb_mem = 0;
if (dev_priv->active_display_unit == vmw_du_screen_target) {
--
2.11.0
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
