On Mon, 2018-10-22 at 12:00 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Mon, 22 Oct 2018, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Quoting Jani Nikula (2018-10-22 09:25:45) > > > On Fri, 12 Oct 2018, José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@xxxxxxxxx> > > > wrote: > > > > Display features should not be initialized or deinitialized > > > > when > > > > display is disabled. > > > > I completely disagree with this assertion. If the display is > > disabled, > > so must all the associated hw so that we can power down the entire > > chipset when idle. That means we have to complete the probe (so we > > continue to rely on fuses and in place of accurate fuses pci-id > > quirks > > for the infamous chipsets) and switch it off. > > That actually doesn't contradict with what I said about > HAS_DISPLAY(). In many cases I think the early return on no display > is > the right thing to do. However, no display isn't the same as display > disabled by module parameter (or whatnot)... which does require probe > before disable to achieve the power down. > > But is the power down on display disable by module parameter a > requirement for us? Okay so I will continue with the current approach to not initialize display stuff when HAS_DISPLAY() == false. Also Jani could you take a look into the first 5 patches? Those are moving some display initialization/uninitialization to proper functions. > > BR, > Jani. > > _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
