On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 02:26:24PM +0200, Ville Syrj?l? wrote: > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:37:28PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 03:29:33PM +0200, ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com wrote: > > > From: Ville Syrj?l? <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrj?l? <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com> > > > > It's true that we safe/restore these suckers across suspend/resume, but I > > have no idea why or whether we need to. Since there's no way we'll ever > > support ums on vlv I think we should just try to guard the safe/resume > > code with DRIVER_MODESET checks and drop this chunk here. > > > > Or too risky? > > No idea. I suppose some silly BIOS might assume that some of these regs > retain their contents. Since opregion the driver/bios collaboration is rather well-defined, so I think we could risk it by guarding the safe/restore code with a (DRIVER_MODESET && opregion) check. Of course, if anyone knows anything to the contrary we need to reconsider. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
