Op 12-05-15 om 12:03 schreef Daniel Vetter:
> 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
It's not removed, but crtc->active is the same as crtc->base.state->active now. The check still works as intended. :-)
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
