On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 08:20:12AM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 21:58:29 +0200 > Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch> wrote: > > > This has been added in > > > > commit de9a35abb3b343a25065449234e47a76c4f3454a > > Author: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch> > > Date: Tue Jun 5 11:03:40 2012 +0200 > > > > drm/i915: assert that the IBX port transcoder select w/a is implemented > > > > Unfortunately I've failed to notice that these checks are not just > > called for the port that is about to be disabled, but for all (which > > makes sense for an assert ...), and the WARN missfired when disabling > > another pipe than the one with the dp port. > > > > Hence also check whether the port is actually disabled. > > > > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=54688 > > Signed-Off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 6 ++++-- > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > index f26fb3f..b8e5a51 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > @@ -1376,7 +1376,8 @@ static void assert_pch_dp_disabled(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, > > "PCH DP (0x%08x) enabled on transcoder %c, should be disabled\n", > > reg, pipe_name(pipe)); > > > > - WARN(HAS_PCH_IBX(dev_priv->dev) && (val & SDVO_PIPE_B_SELECT), > > + WARN(HAS_PCH_IBX(dev_priv->dev) && (val & DP_PORT_EN) == 0 > > + && (val & DP_PIPEB_SELECT), > > "IBX PCH dp port still using transcoder B\n"); > > } > > > > @@ -1388,7 +1389,8 @@ static void assert_pch_hdmi_disabled(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, > > "PCH HDMI (0x%08x) enabled on transcoder %c, should be disabled\n", > > reg, pipe_name(pipe)); > > > > - WARN(HAS_PCH_IBX(dev_priv->dev) && (val & SDVO_PIPE_B_SELECT), > > + WARN(HAS_PCH_IBX(dev_priv->dev) && (val & PORT_ENABLE) == 0 > > + && (val & SDVO_PIPE_B_SELECT), > > "IBX PCH hdmi port still using transcoder B\n"); > > } > > > > Won't these warn if the port is disabled rather than enabled? > Shouldn't we be checking for (val & PORT_ENABLE) != 0 *and* pipe B is > selected? Recap from our irc discussion: This is for an ibx workaround, where we can't let a disabled port stay on transcoder B (for it prevents the other encoder on the same port from reliably getting enabled). The "is this port properly disabled" check is above the diff context. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
