On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 09:56:07 +0200 Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote: > 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. Testing fail on my part; I was testing PCH ports but not DP with the config I had. Jesse
