On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 10:41:05AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Mon, 01 Sep 2014, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 01:36:37PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 11:20:09AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > >> > On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 01:07:40PM +0300, ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > > > >> > > When intel_tv_detect() fails to do load detection it would forget to > >> > > drop the locks and clean up the acquire context. Fix it up. > >> > > > >> > > This is a regression from: > >> > > commit 208bf9fdcd3575aa4a5d48b3e0295f7cdaf6fc44 > >> > > Author: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > > Date: Mon Aug 11 13:15:35 2014 +0300 > >> > > > >> > > drm/i915: Fix locking for intel_enable_pipe_a() > >> > > > >> > > v2: Make the code more readable (Chris) > >> > > > >> > > Cc: Tibor Billes <tbilles@xxxxxxx> > >> > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > > >> > Hmm, if we use WARN_ON() you should init type. > >> > >> type is always set in the branch that sets status=connected. > > > > Back to thinking about readability and making sure that the WARN_ON > > never happens with just a glance. Otherwise, the WARN_ON would be better > > as WARN_ON(unsigned)type >= last_tv_type); Or something. Anway, take > > your pick and slap my r-b on it. :) > > Ville? I don't know anymore. Just kill the WARN_ON() if it makes things confusing? -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
