On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 11:16:12AM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > 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? Just drop the WARN_ON. I prefer the if() using the status rather than type, as that seems more idiomatic (when looking at our other detection routines). -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
