On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 01:59:10PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> We need to make sure that no one else is using this in the
> enable function and also that the work item hasn't raced
> with the disabled function.
>
> v2: Improve bisectability by moving one hunk to an earlier patch.
>
> Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> index 910f73de3a92..870219ff1187 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> @@ -1844,6 +1844,11 @@ void intel_edp_psr_enable(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> return;
> }
Is this the tail of a HAS_PSR() now made obsolete?
> + if (dev_priv->psr.enabled) {
> + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("PSR already in use\n");
> + return;
> + }
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
