On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 2:12 AM, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes at virtuousgeek.org> wrote: > On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 01:15:28 +0200 > Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 08:11:05PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> > On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 10:03:56AM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: >> > > If we couldn't find a pipe we shouldn't return true. This might be even >> > > better as a WARN though, since it should be impossible to have the port >> > > enabled without a pipe selected. >> > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes at virtuousgeek.org> >> > >> > These two fixes are merged for -next, thanks. >> >> Actually this one here is broken, so I've had to revert it. > > What failed? How is it possible we'd have a DP port without a pipe? > Every pattern in the register field should correspond to a pipe right? Review failed on my side - you've changed the return which is used by all the success cases ... There's another return for one failure case, and the no-pipe one just falls through. The only case this patch did _not_ break is pch ports on cpt/ppt. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
