On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 12:19:16 +0200, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 05:08:47PM -0300, Eugeni Dodonov wrote: > > Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at gmail.com> > > Signed-off-by: Eugeni Dodonov <eugeni.dodonov at intel.com> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > index 3d78686..5ee652d 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > @@ -2427,7 +2427,7 @@ intel_pipe_set_base(struct drm_crtc *crtc, int x, int y, > > case 1: > > break; > > case 2: > > - if (IS_IVYBRIDGE(dev)) > > + if (IS_IVYBRIDGE(dev) || IS_HASWELL(dev)) > > break; > > /* fall through otherwise */ > > default: > > Imo this code is a rather funky way to check for 3 plane support ... I > think we should just replace this entire switch statement with a > if(WARN_ON(intel_crtc->plane > dev_priv->num_pipes)) return -EINVAL; > > Or has there been another reason for this? Chris, git blame says you've > originally added this in 5c3b82e2, any comments? Yup, it's just a userspace (and internal consistency) validation check, so if (pipe >= dev_priv->num_pipes) return -EINVAL; would have sufficed. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
