2014-03-10 8:57 GMT-03:00 Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx>: > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Ville Syrjälä > <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 10:29:26PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 06:32:14PM +0200, ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>> > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> > >>> > We won't be calling intel_enable_primary_plane() or >>> > intel_disable_primary_plane() with the primary plane in the >>> > wrong state. So remove the useless DISPLAY_PLANE_ENABLE checks. >>> > >>> > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> Convert them to asserts, or are we already covered in this regard? >>> >>> /me has an uncanny love for self-checks ... >> >> There's a WARN() for the crtc->primary_enabled flag in there, which >> should cover things. Although we could add some sanity check that makes >> sure the DISPLAY_PLANE_ENABLE bit matches crtc->primary_enabled. > > Yeah, that's what I've thought of - we generally double-check hw state > before frobbing it. I agree with Daniel here, let's convert it to a WARN. > -Daniel > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx -- Paulo Zanoni _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
