On Thu, 2018-07-19 at 16:37 -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 11:51:40AM -0700, Dhinakaran Pandiyan wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2018-07-18 at 22:43 -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:19:43AM -0700, Dhinakaran Pandiyan > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > We are too late in the enabling sequence to back out cleanly, > > > > not > > > > updating > > > > state tracking variables, like intel_dp->active_mst_links in > > > > this > > > > instance, results in incorrect behaviour further along. > > > I agree with you, although I'm not fully convinced that we need > > > to > > > call the > > > update payload if vcpi allocation failed... > > But there is more payload update code in intel_mst_enable_dp(), > oh... the part2 indeed... > > > > > that > > would get executed regardless of this diff below. We'll have to > > rewrite > > pre_enable, enable, disable and post_disable if the idea is avoid > > sink > > transactions after the first failure. It does make sense to do all > > of > > that as it avoids printing error messages in dmesg when we very > > well > > know the branch device is disconnected, but this should be a > > separate > > change. > fair enough... > > > > > My idea was to bring pre_enable/enable in line with > > disable/post_disable. > makes sense... I just saw it is similar on payload update failure. > > Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> Thanks for the review, I will push this with Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107281 _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
