On Tue, 2015-06-02 at 09:27 +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > Op 02-06-15 om 09:12 schreef Jani Nikula: > > On Mon, 01 Jun 2015, Ander Conselvan de Oliveira <ander.conselvan.de.oliveira@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Since the force restore logic will restore the CRTCs state one at a > >> time, it is possible that the state will be inconsistent until the whole > >> operation finishes. A call to intel_modeset_check_state() is done once > >> it's over, so don't check the state multiple times in between. This > >> regression was introduced in: > >> > >> commit 7f27126ea3db6ade886f18fd39caf0ff0cd1d37f > >> Author: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Date: Wed Nov 5 14:26:06 2014 -0800 > >> > >> drm/i915: factor out compute_config from __intel_set_mode v3 > >> > >> Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94431 > >> Cc: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Signed-off-by: Ander Conselvan de Oliveira <ander.conselvan.de.oliveira@xxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> This patch applies on top of nightly, but it is only relevant without > >> Maarten's "drm/i915: Convert to atomic, part 2" series, because of the > >> changes to the hw state read out and force restore logic. > >> > >> The regression exists since 3.19. > > Sooo, I think this should be applied to fixes, with cc: stable v3.19+, > > and IIUC Maarten's series makes this obsolete in dinq? > > > > Now we just need review... Maarten? > > > > BR, > > Jani. > Reviewed-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Looks good to me, but it will conflict with my own patch series. :( I think it's fine to skip this for dinq, since we move to a single modeset in the force restore path with your patch series. I just got confused with what branch to base this on. Thanks for reviewing. Ander _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
