On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Maarten Lankhorst
<maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> @@ -11953,16 +11930,14 @@ check_shared_dpll_state(struct drm_device *dev)
>
> for_each_intel_crtc(dev, crtc) {
> if (crtc->base.state->active && intel_crtc_to_shared_dpll(crtc) == pll)
> - enabled_crtcs++;
> - if (crtc->active && intel_crtc_to_shared_dpll(crtc) == pll)
> active_crtcs++;
> }
> I915_STATE_WARN(pll->active != active_crtcs,
> "pll active crtcs mismatch (expected %i, found %i)\n",
> pll->active, active_crtcs);
> - I915_STATE_WARN(hweight32(pll->config.crtc_mask) != enabled_crtcs,
> + I915_STATE_WARN(hweight32(pll->config.crtc_mask) != active_crtcs,
> "pll enabled crtcs mismatch (expected %i, found %i)\n",
> - hweight32(pll->config.crtc_mask), enabled_crtcs);
> + hweight32(pll->config.crtc_mask), active_crtcs);
Missed one: Why do you remove this? Imo that's a fairly crucial
consistency check.
-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
