On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:20:58AM -0700, Souza, Jose wrote: > On Mon, 2018-03-12 at 21:42 -0700, Dhinakaran Pandiyan wrote: > > The flag becomes misleading with flips and cursor moves not modifying > > it's > > state as HW takes care of exiting PSR (when HW tracking is enabled) > > > > Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 1 - > > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c > > index c4cc8fef11a0..416dcb703e23 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c > > @@ -2565,7 +2565,6 @@ static int i915_edp_psr_status(struct seq_file > > *m, void *data) > > > > mutex_lock(&dev_priv->psr.lock); > > seq_printf(m, "Enabled: %s\n", yesno((bool)dev_priv- > > >psr.enabled)); > > - seq_printf(m, "Active: %s\n", yesno(dev_priv->psr.active)); > > Maybe would be better rename to something else, like "Hardware > activated/enabled". Actually is the other way around. But this just show us how confusing it is. So, Acked-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> > > > seq_printf(m, "Busy frontbuffer bits: 0x%03x\n", > > dev_priv->psr.busy_frontbuffer_bits); > > seq_printf(m, "Re-enable work scheduled: %s\n", _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
