On Thu, 2017-09-14 at 14:32 -0700, Ausmus, James wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Dhinakaran Pandiyan
> <dhinakaran.pandiyan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > The caller already has code to handle failure, no need to duplicate
> > that.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 6 ------
> > 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > index 3f2ca10ccbcd..2886a2ef1591 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > @@ -4232,13 +4232,7 @@ intel_dp_check_mst_status(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> > ret = 0;
> > }
> > } else {
> > - struct intel_digital_port *intel_dig_port = dp_to_dig_port(intel_dp);
> > -
> > DRM_DEBUG_KMS("failed to get ESI - device may have failed\n");
> > - intel_dp->is_mst = false;
> > - drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst(&intel_dp->mst_mgr,
> > - intel_dp->is_mst);
> > - drm_kms_helper_hotplug_event(intel_dig_port->base.base.dev);
>
> It looks like intel_dp_hpd_pulse doesn't call
> drm_kms_helper_hotplug_event on a failure in
> intel_dp_check_mst_status, so we would lose that path with this patch
> - do we need that?
>
Because we return IRQ_NONE when that happens, intel_dp_detect() should
eventually get called from i915_digport_work_func(). Further, when the
connector status gets updated in
intel_dp_detect()->intel_dp_long_pulse(), a hotplug_event ends up being
sent.
But this patch only should be removing redundant code, not make alter
the code path. I'll fix that up. Thanks for catching this.
> > ret = -EINVAL;
> > }
> > return ret;
> > --
> > 2.11.0
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Intel-gfx mailing list
> > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
