On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 02:46:52PM -0300, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: >> Hi Chris, >> >> could you please review this specific one or give you ack here? > > Didn't see anything wrong with it. The only caveat I have is that the > GETPARAM must be accurate immediately following a setcrtc. To be truly honest I have no idea, mainly when we alternate with fbcon updating psr state at set_base. Could you please also review subsequent patches in this series... 10 and 11. I think 11 answer this question... Another alternative would be using i915_enable_psr + i915_powersave check instead of reading the register for current enabled status. > If you can > guarrantee that is true, you can have my > Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > and if Daniel delays, ask him to reserve the PARAM number. > -Chris > > -- > Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre -- Rodrigo Vivi Blog: http://blog.vivi.eng.br _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
