On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:13:33AM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> 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,
Afaics vmw_kms_atomic_check_modeset should be static. Feel free to include
or not include that bikeshed.
Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>
> 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
--
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
