On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:41:48AM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > This updates my old patch for this, but w/o fixing the locking issue > Ville mentioned. In looking at it, it seems like the sync point should > be at a higher level, maybe at the level of the atomic mode setting async > serialization points? Another possibility would be to make it a lazy > init type function, sprinkled about but only running once when we first > need it. > > Any thoughts from anyone? I don't think I can just do a lock drop here, > since other threads may jump in and mess with underlying state. That > shouldn't affect the eDP state we fill out, but may affect the state the > caller depended on in the first place... Imo the real issue is that we register a connector and then throw it away again. Not that big a problem any more since mst dp happened meanwhile but still might result in confusion. I think we should try to at least get the "is this an edp or not" question right, and only postpone the other init steps. So maybe start with making that edp failed to init issue really loud and then rip it out? Postponing all the other init work would be comparitively a lot easier I think. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
