On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 03:44:30PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 03:06:35PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > index 51b4cd29f932..83eabd758ed9 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > @@ -1546,7 +1546,7 @@ static void vlv_enable_pll(struct intel_crtc *crtc) > > BUG_ON(!IS_VALLEYVIEW(dev_priv->dev)); > > > > /* PLL is protected by panel, make sure we can write it */ > > - if (IS_MOBILE(dev_priv->dev) && !IS_I830(dev_priv->dev)) > > + if (IS_MOBILE(dev_priv->dev)) > > assert_panel_unlocked(dev_priv, crtc->pipe); > > My gut feeling is that the IS_MOBILE check could also be dropped. Not > quite sure though since VLV_D is not mentioned anywhere in the docs > AFAICS. I think in the old gens we've pretty much just used IS_MOBILE as HAS_LVDS. vlv/chv having edp panels instead makes that a bit more complicated, but generally I think a new IS_MOBILE check is bogus. > Anyway dropping the 830 check definitely makes sense so: > Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Queued for -next, thanks for the patch. -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
