On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 22:08:35 +0200
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch> wrote:
> Hopefully this makes userspace slightly less confused about us
> frobbing the dpms state behind its back. Yeah, it would be better
> to be more careful with not changing the dpms state, but that is
> quite more invasive.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 6 ++++++
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> index 805324d..bff0936 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> @@ -6806,7 +6806,13 @@ intel_modeset_update_state(struct drm_device *dev, unsigned prepare_pipes)
> intel_crtc = to_intel_crtc(connector->encoder->crtc);
>
> if (prepare_pipes & (1 << intel_crtc->pipe)) {
> + struct drm_property *dpms_property =
> + dev->mode_config.dpms_property;
> +
> connector->dpms = DRM_MODE_DPMS_ON;
> + drm_connector_property_set_value(connector,
> + dpms_property,
> + DRM_MODE_DPMS_ON);
>
> intel_encoder = to_intel_encoder(connector->encoder);
> intel_encoder->connectors_active = true;
Both this and the last one need lots of testing coming from different
DPMS states between fbcon and X, especially across different heads and
connectors.
Reviewed-by: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes at virtuousgeek.org>
--
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
