From: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> Otherwise we'll get a WARN from drm_wait_one_vblank() saying that vblanks are not available (since they were already disabled in crtc_disable()). This is certainly a regresison, but QA couldn't bisect it due to other regressions breaking the bisect. Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89550 Testcase: igt/pm_rpm/legacy-planes Testcase: igt/pm_rpm/legacy-planes-dpms Testcase: igt/pm_rpm/universal-planes Testcase: igt/pm_rpm/universal-planes-dpms Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@xxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) I'm not really sure if this is the best way to fix the regression. Ville and/or Matt should provide some comments here. diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c index f1c0295..f2f7e81 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c @@ -12193,7 +12193,7 @@ static void intel_finish_crtc_commit(struct drm_crtc *crtc) intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv); - if (intel_crtc->atomic.wait_vblank) + if (intel_crtc->active && intel_crtc->atomic.wait_vblank) intel_wait_for_vblank(dev, intel_crtc->pipe); intel_frontbuffer_flip(dev, intel_crtc->atomic.fb_bits); -- 2.1.4 _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
