On Wed, 2018-04-11 at 19:42 -0400, Lyude Paul wrote:
> Does what it says on the label, it's a little confusing debugging atomic
> check failures otherwise.
>
> Cc: Manasi Navare <manasi.d.navare@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Lyude Paul <lyude@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c | 5 ++++-
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c
> index 7d25c42f22db..972a7e9634ab 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c
> @@ -1705,8 +1705,11 @@ int drm_atomic_check_only(struct drm_atomic_state *state)
> if (config->funcs->atomic_check)
> ret = config->funcs->atomic_check(state->dev, state);
>
> - if (ret)
> + if (ret) {
> + DRM_DEBUG_ATOMIC("atomic driver check for %p failed: %d\n",
> + state, ret);
> return ret;
> + }
>
nit: Would have slightly looked better if the 'ret' check was moved
inside the branch for funcs->atomic_check.
Reviewed-by: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan@xxxxxxxxx>
> if (!state->allow_modeset) {
> for_each_new_crtc_in_state(state, crtc, crtc_state, i) {
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
