On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 07:55:42PM +0200, Ville Syrjala wrote:
> From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> The early return in drm_atomic_set_mode_for_crtc() isn't quite
> right. It would mistakenly return and fail to update
> crtc_state->enable if someone actually tried to set a zeroed
> mode on a currently disabled crtc. I suppose that should never
> happen but better safe than sorry.
>
> Additionally the early return will not be taken if we're trying to
> disable an already disable crtc. While that is not actually harmful
> it is inconsistent, so let's handle that case as well.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Do we have an igt for this? I.e. trying to set a all-0 mode for a disabled
CRTC and seeing what happens ...
Patch itself looks fine, has my r-b if the igt materializes.
-Daniel
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_uapi.c | 9 +++++++--
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_uapi.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_uapi.c
> index 86ac33922b09..ed0ea82e8a1d 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_uapi.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_uapi.c
> @@ -68,8 +68,13 @@ int drm_atomic_set_mode_for_crtc(struct drm_crtc_state *state,
> struct drm_mode_modeinfo umode;
>
> /* Early return for no change. */
> - if (mode && memcmp(&state->mode, mode, sizeof(*mode)) == 0)
> - return 0;
> + if (state->enable) {
> + if (mode && memcmp(&state->mode, mode, sizeof(*mode)) == 0)
> + return 0;
> + } else {
> + if (!mode)
> + return 0;
> + }
>
> drm_property_blob_put(state->mode_blob);
> state->mode_blob = NULL;
> --
> 2.18.1
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
