On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 04:07:19PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 04:38:28PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > > On Fri, 13 Sep 2013, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 11:03:09AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > > >> Flat out skip anything to do with PLL if we have a DSI encoder (and thus > > >> DSI PLL). Also skip PLL computation if the encoder has already set > > >> clocks. This allows for some tidying up of the code, including a > > >> superfluous call to intel_limit() for LVDS downclock path. > > >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> > > >> Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Tried to merge this but the baseline seems to be off, at least wrt dinq. > > > Do I miss some patches that I should apply first? > > > > This one depends on "drm/i915: do not update cursor in crtc mode set" in > > this thread (my patch but with Ville's commit message amendmend). Did > > you push the assert patch before that? It's a good order. > > I've pushed the assert patch to dinq, the real fixes need to go to -fixes. > Tbh I'm a bit confused about what to put where, so please scream ;-) > > For Ville's patches I'm waiting a bit for Paulo to take a look and ack > them. For stable we need just (assuming it also fixes Paulo's hangs): drm/i915: do not update cursor in crtc mode set On top of that we can add the cursor assert patch (not sure if we want that to go to stable): drm/i915: add asserts for cursor disabled I get the impression you applied the assert patch alone. That's probably not a very good idea since it will (or at least should) scream every time you do a modeset, unless the other patch is applied as well. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
